[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>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>HWu<BR><BR><B><I>"Sterling K. Webb" &lt;<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:kelly_at_bhil.com">kelly@bhil.com</A>&gt;</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>&gt; Dear List, Geologic Associates;<BR>&gt; I =
came=20
    across the term "meteoric water" while reading up on =
pre-cambrian<BR>&gt;=20
    iron formations. Then, there was a relation to more modern/later=20
    times<BR>&gt; meteoric waters.<BR>&gt; Does this have any =
relationship to=20
    meteorites? Guess I am at maximum<BR>&gt; absorption level=20
    presently.<BR>&gt; Thank you in advance for any input,<BR>&gt; Dave=20
    Freeman<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=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?&nbsp;<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


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb