Why does the ocean elevate?

Mercurio I don't have time at present to refute each of your points. The basic issue is that plate tectonics is powered by mantle convection currents. Any other effects are secondary. Those two points woould be accepted by 99.8% of geologists.
If you are proposing something else it requires evidence. You keep presenting consequences as if they were causes. Example: in your last post you say "You asked where the energy comes from when globs get sucked under, added or just gas. Artists impression from the Cambridge would say gaseous:"
No those are not bubbles of gas, those are magma melts. Where did the energy come from to melt them? The heat of the mantle. Once again they are a consequence not a cause.
 
Andre said:
The 10 fold higher deuterium ratio on Venus strongly suggests that there has been plenty of water on Venus.
Absolutely. At one time. Just as, at one time, I suspect plate tectonics were active on Venus.

Andre said:
Water is capable of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by weathering[/url], no life required for that.
Two points:I suggested the role of life in sequestering carbon dioxide may have been pivotal, not that it was. I believe the jury is still out on that.
Second, life is more efficient at carbon dioxide removal than weathering.

Andre said:
There are some problems though with the complete outgassing and the missing oxygen, but that's besides the point.
I'm not clear what your point is. Would you clarify please.

Andre said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basaltic based simatic crusts seems to have a higher density than the granite based sial continental crust. Why would it be harder to push that around?
Three things:
1. Very much thicker.
2. Substantial subterranean topography.
3. Much more massive.

Andre said:
Venus may have no plate tectonics because the planet may have cooled, the same reason why it lacks magnetism.
I would subsrcibe to the notion that the lack of magnetism is due to the painfully slow rotation.
 
Ophiolite said:
Mercurio I don't have time at present to refute each of your points. The basic issue is that plate tectonics is powered by mantle convection currents. Any other effects are secondary. Those two points woould be accepted by 99.8% of geologists.
If you are proposing something else it requires evidence. You keep presenting consequences as if they were causes. Example: in your last post you say "You asked where the energy comes from when globs get sucked under, added or just gas. Artists impression from the Cambridge would say gaseous:"
No those are not bubbles of gas, those are magma melts. Where did the energy come from to melt them? The heat of the mantle. Once again they are a consequence not a cause.

Well, I've sort of had enough of this discussion too.

Your statement about mantle convection currents is incorrect, even according to a leading source (Cambridge).

I know they are magma melts. I didn't think gas erupted into vulcanos even judging from that picture, thank you. 'Gaseous' was the word, since it rises.

The heat comes from friction energy ofcourse, not simply 'the mantle', btw Ophiolite. Have fun.

[unsubscribe]
 
at one time, I suspect plate tectonics were active on Venus.

Me too, before the "resurfacing" event.

- the missing oxygen problem and the outgassing event. refer to this link again:

The work suggests that Venus had relatively Earth-like conditions during its early history. It also suggests (as many scientists now believe) that Venus, Earth, and Mars formed from similar interstellar materials, and that all three originally had substantial amounts of water.
....
The wet greenhouse theory with its oceans far better explains Venus than
the "runaway greenhouse" model now used. It accounts for the first time for
the almost completely waterless state of the present-day planet. It
explains where the planet's missing oxygen is stored.
....

The old and new theories go as follows:
In the runaway greenhouse, Venus's huge primordial atmosphere would have
trapped much of the Sun's heat, preventing formation of any oceans at all,
and creating a dense water vapor-carbon dioxide atmosphere. An immense
amount of water vapor would have risen to the top of the atmosphere.
Solar ultraviolet radiation would have split (dissociated) the water
molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen (the lighest gas) would
have blown away to space by the super-fast hydrodynamic escape process -- and been lost forever -- destroying this water.
However, highly efficient hydrodynamic escape would have stopped when water was reduced to a minor constituent of the atmosphere (around 20 percent). But even 20 percent of an enormous atmosphere like Venus's is still a lot of water, and much of this water should be left on the planet today. However, the four atmosphere probes of NASA-Ames' Pioneer-Venus spacecraft didn't find it there.
This amount of leftover water would be enough to make an atmosphere (if
it consisted of nothing else but water vapor) ten to twenty times as dense
as the entire atmosphere of Earth.

Kasting's "wet greenhouse" theory answers this surplus water objection:
Venus formed with plenty of original water which condensed out and created Earth-scale oceans. The oceans were hot because of the planet's
closeness to the Sun and the trapping of incoming solar heat by atmospheric
carbon dioxide and water vapor. Because Venus's surface was so hot, much of the oceans evaporated until perhaps 50 percent of the atmosphere was water vapor. However, at this point the oceans won out. Water vapor pressure had built up so high that it prevented further evaporation from the oceans -- just as does the water vapor in a kitchen pressure cooker. The oceans were very hot, 200-300 degrees F (around boiling temperature on Earth). Yet because of the high vapor pressure of atmospheric water vapor, the bulk of the water on the planet remained liquid. Hydrogen would still have escaped rapidly from the top of the atmosphere by the super-efficient hydrodynamic escape mechanism. But the atmospheric water lost this way would have been steadily replenished by further evaporation from the underlying ocean. By remaining liquid over millions of years, the oceans were able to move the original huge mass of carbon dioxide gas out of the atmosphere. They did this by converting most of this gas into carbonate rocks in Venus's crust. (These are the same multi-step, ocean-planet interactions that have converted Earth's enormous mass of carbon dioxide into carbonate rock.) This process (generally described as "weathering") reduced the atmospheric density on Venus from perhaps 90 times Earth's atmosphere to perhaps only about the same density as Earth's atmosphere.
In both greenhouse theories, when water vapor dropped to around 20
percent of the atmosphere, hydrodynamic escape ceased to push hydrogen off the planet, and destroy its water. But 20 percent of a thin Earth-size atmosphere is about 100 times less water than 20 percent of an enormous, Venus-type, carbon dioxide atmosphere. This means that in the wet greenhouse model by the time hydrodynamic escape had ended, with its thin Venus atmosphere, nearly all of Venus's water was lost. Slower hydrogen escape processes in the several billion years since then have reduced the planet's water still further to today's tiny amount.
...
Venus has only a hundred thousandth as much water
as the Earth.

Kasting's "wet greenhouse" with oceans helps clear up another Venus mystery. If most of the planet's water split into hydrogen and oxygen, and all the hydrogen blew away to space, where is the oxygen that was left behind? The four Pioneer probe craft didn't find it in the atmosphere. Many scientist believe that much of the missing oxygen is locked up in the planet's crust. It has combined into such oxygen-rich minerals as hematite and magnetite.

However, to get the crust to lock up this much oxygen, an efficient
mechanism for remixing the planet's surface rocks is required. A few
hundred million years of precipitation, erosion, and weathering produced by
Venusian oceans may well be this mechanism.

.... If the hydrodynaamic escape was vigorous enough
-- due to enhanced ultraviolet heating from a magnetically active young Sun
-- much leftover oxygen may have been dragged into space with the hydrogen....


Good story however I see several problems.
There is a lot of oxygen missing. Dragging into space would not suffice; the N2 has not been dragged in space either.

Picture all Earth oceans oxygen in the atmosphere it would be orders of magnetude denser than Venus current atmosphere. This means that the whole process (sediment reaction with the free oxygen) must have been very very slow and it must have required vigourous tectonics ;) to replace the oxygen saturated soil. If the oxygen density gets too high in the process, the 20% rule would have precluded all the hydrogen outgassing.

The build up of the younger CO2 atmosphere is totally missing in the whole equation. The weathering process is claimed to remove it initially but the limestone reaction is reversible:

CaCO3 <=> Ca(2+) + CO3(2-) and CO3(2-) + 2H+ <=> H2O + CO2

depending on temperature, acidity and saturation the oceans would give CO2 back to the atmosphere, increasing it's density and precluding the complete outgassing of H2. But even if all the Earth crust limestone at the ocean bottom and surface was reduced to CO2 it would be far less than what is in Venus atmosphere.

But AFAIK there are only two natural non biological processes to convert limestones to CO2, the aforementioned reverse weathering that requires water to be around and lime burning, CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 at temperatures around 1000K obviously without water. As long as liquid water was available the reverse weathering could not have been significant, because of the nearly complete outgassing. But little atmosphere means also little greenhouse gas effect. Far to little to produce 1000 K temperatures. Nevertheless, the majority of CO2 must have been formed by lime burning. Considering that the atmosphere of Venus contains more carbon than is estimated for the entire lithosphere of Earth, even the hundreds of vulcanoes would not be sufficient to get all the carbon out of the lithosphere.

And, Kwikzilverio, a paradigm shift (Kuhn 1962) would be possible if we'd agreed that this problem, together with many more pertaining to Venus, constitutes a scientific crisis.
 
Originaly posted by Ophiolite
I would subsrcibe to the notion that the lack of magnetism is due to the painfully slow rotation.

I would not ;) If the Earth magnetic field was directly caused by it's rotation, how to explain the numerous magnetic pole flips? But you mentioned a factor the most likely mechanism yourself:
The basic issue is that plate tectonics is powered by mantle convection currents.
But mantle convection is powered by outer core convection and so is the Earth magnetic field according to the geodynamo hypothesis. Glatzmaier's model was remarkable mimicriing the paleo magnetic excursions and field reversals.

Consequently, if this hypothesis stands, lack of magnetism signifies lack of outer core convection and consequently, lack of sufficient thermal gradient for convention, consistent with the measurements of the lithosphere thermal gradient.
 
On the off chance that you may return, but principally to maintain some accuracy:
mercurio said:
Well, I've sort of had enough of this discussion too.
I hadn't. I simply said I did not have time right now to address each of your points.
mercurio said:
Your statement about mantle convection currents is incorrect, even according to a leading source (Cambridge).
Tell me where in your source mantle convection currents are not identified as the primary mechanism for plate tectonics? Or where an alternative mechanism is proposed? Indeed you quote from your own source, "A logical scheme of birth, destruction and renewal will continue as long as sufficient heat is produced in the Earth's mantle to drive the plates around the surface of the globe"
mercurio said:
I know they are magma melts. I didn't think gas erupted into vulcanos even judging from that picture, thank you. 'Gaseous' was the word, since it rises.
My impression is that you have decided to leave the discussion because I am attacking you. I am not. I am attacking the errors which you persist in filling your posts with.
Gas contained in solution in the magma does indeed erupt in volcanoes, contrary to your staement here, but only near the surface where the constraining pressure is much reduced.
A 'thing' rises because it is less dense, not because it is gaseous. This is a wholly wrong use of the word.
mercurio said:
The heat comes from friction energy ofcourse, not simply 'the mantle', btw Ophiolite. Have fun.
What is powering the frictional generation of heat? The mantle convection currents. Once again a secondary effect.
Thank you, I shall have fun.
 
Andre, the recent threads have carried us quite off topic. I see you've managed to turn around to your favourite topic. No problem, but if you want an intelligent response I'll need to take some time to digest your ideas and provided links.
 
Ophiolite

the recent threads have carried us quite off topic. I see you've managed to turn around to your favourite topic.

Which one? The mammoths, the Clatrate gun, the paleoclimate controversy during the late pleistocene, especially the last glacial maximum and beyond, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Optimum, the Rapid True Polar Wander, Venus? oh, and Global warming of course.

Well if a certain nobody wants to start a couple of paradigm shifts, I guess everything is allowed, even stealing threads ;)
 
Last edited:
Okay, well the basic hypothesis is that terrestrial planets of sufficient size contain a serious design flaw. Both Earth and Venus are suffering. It made Venus the scorning inferno what it is now and it teases Earth a little every now and then.
 
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by a "terrestrial planet"? Small and rocky?
What is that flaw you talk about? How does it show itself on Earth? Isn't that just climate (geological)?
If it's not perfect for us, humans, it doesn't mean that it's not perfect or good for other life forms.

Moreover, even if there is a flaw by your logic, but a design flaw?
I highly doubt planets have been designed (well, apart from the Douglas Adams book). I don't think we can talk about the concept of "flaw" in planetary bodies.
 
Last edited:
Well a Terrestrial planet is a name given to a planet composed mainly of rock and iron, similar to that of Earth.

And the design flaw is exactly what it is meant to say. For instance if a bigger terrestrial planet was made of solid rock like the moon or Mercury for instance things would be okay but instead bigger terrestrial planets contain a mantle a fluid outer core and a solid inner core. That's a serious design flaw.
 
Ophiolite said:
I was thinking Venus. :)

I have just spent 20 mins reading this thread. Ophiolite i salute you. There seems to be an awful lot of posts by the hard of thinking, that you have consitantly answered there points with hard facts and good explainations, has amazed me. Your staying power is awsome ;)
 
And about:

Mercurio: The heat comes from friction energy of course, not simply 'the mantle', btw Ophiolite. Have fun. ”

Ophiolite: What is powering the frictional generation of heat?

I have seen a few dozen publications on the cause of the heat of the interior of the Earth, the geo-reactor (Hendon), normal nucleair sequence reactions, 40K-40Ar. All are based on scholar views of the moment.

Suppose that my little pet idea was right, then as a consequence there would be another explanation that would put Mercurio -by coincidence- in the right corner. Then the current internal heat would be caused by friction of the consecutive 100,000 years events that we interpret now as the Ice Ages to interglacial sequences, the last one from some 30,000 years to perhaps 4000 years ago.

Exactly the same process caused Venus to stop spinning, heating it to the present furnace.

Warning: this is only toying with ideas and physics, rather well supported by concrete evidence, but it's not the scholar view.
 
slotty said:
Ophiolite i salute you. ..... Your staying power is awsome ;)
Thank you. I guess I'm just to dumb to know when I'm beaten, or to distingush between a listener and a brick wall. (Or is it the old troika - I am strong willed and consistent, you are stuborn and intransigent, she is pigheaded and stuck in her ways.:) )
 
Andre said:
And the design flaw is exactly what it is meant to say. For instance if a bigger terrestrial planet was made of solid rock like the moon or Mercury for instance things would be okay but instead bigger terrestrial planets contain a mantle a fluid outer core and a solid inner core. That's a serious design flaw.

You can not have a design flaw if there is no design. You do not chose physics or random events.
 
Yes, Avatar. I am also confused as to whether Andre is meaning to imply a designer, or is using the phrase in a metaphorical sense.
In either case Andre, what aspect of the consecutive 100,000 years events that we interpret now as the Ice Ages to interglacial sequences would create the current internal heat .....by friction ?
 
Well if "design flaw" is too metaphorical, how about "manufacturing error".

It's a rather complicated story. Took me six years to get the finger behind it.

The interaction between Earth as a complicated three fold gyroscope (mantle - fluid outer core - solid inner core) under the torque force of the precession of the equinoxes and other orbit pertubations could be having a bit more problems than we suspect.

Considering that Astro- physisists always assume the Earth to be a solid rock in a complicated multiple spinning motion whilst the geophysisist picture the Earth as a complicated multi shelled ductile brittle elastic fluid contraption, but mostly motionless apart from the daily spin, there is not really a speciality responsible for putting it all together.

That's what I have tried.

Think of a raw egg spinning versus a boiled egg.
 
Sorry Andre. I guess I'm being thick. A manufacturing error implies it was intended to be different, it did not match the plans. Whose plans? You appear to be saying that the terrestrial planets were assemmbled according to a plan, but in the case of Venus and the Earth the plan was not followed correctly. Who or what produced that plan? Even for brandy and cigar speculation that is pretty wild and requires some form of justification.
Or, are you meaning something more like "there is an aspect of the way the constituents of Venus and Earth came together that has created an unfortunate tendency in the dynamic evolution of the planet."

Secondly I still do not understand what aspect of the Ice Ages would create the current internal heat .....by friction ?
 
Okay forget about that then. If in our humble human minds we like to have a planet that is physical sound and would spin nicely forever. But we see that Venus did not comply to that. And the spinning stop of Venus appears to have caused a hot brake effect, heating up the planet tremendously. Hence my question marks at the wet greenhouse gas theory. From this point of view there must have been something wrong with the planet itself.

Can the same happen to Earth? I'm afraid so although the moon is postponing the end result like Venus probably a few hundred million years. But it has started already about one million years ago, when the 100,000 years isotope cycle kicked in out of the blue.

http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/sciencespectra.htm

What did happen the last million years about every 100,000 years were the physical effects of misalignment of the mantle spin axis with the inner core spin axis due to different precession logics. Each event lasted about 20,000 - 30,000 years each time when realigment occured after completion of the precession cycle.

It may have caused another version of Kirschvink's (rapid) true polar wander.

And currently we interpret the effects as interglacials. But it's a very long complex story with many more players:

RPTW-system.jpg
 
Back
Top