The Deep Water Cycle

a reply to: cooperton

hahahaha, the fruits of your false knowledge exposed.

That comment, right there

And you still assume you're right..

For a Christian you get off on pissing people off using fallacy an awful lot. ..

Return to this with my "false knowledge"

How does a "pressure change in the core" dehydrate the ringwoodite and wadsleyite" (and everything else) and send it all the way to the top of Mt. Everest, without releasing any magma or anything else ahead of it?

If you want the H2O in the transition zone (NOT THE F*CKING WEDGE) how are you going to get ONLY THAT TO THE SURFACE.

EVERYTHING else you say is bull# if you can't answer that.

Give me the process THE GETS ONLY WATER TO THE SURFACE AFTER TOTALLY CHANGING THE EARTHS INTERIOR PRESSURE?

originally posted by: Degradation33
That comment, right theere..

And you still assume you're right..

For a Christian you get off on pissing off and using fallacy an awful lot. ..

Christ infuriated the 'teachers of the law', he exposed their hypocrisy and how empty their knowledge truly was. They even sought violence upon him, just like you in your post on the last page.

"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict." Luke 21:15

a reply to: cooperton

WHAT PROCESS WOULD CAUSE THE #ING MANTLE TO LOSE ITS WATER?

*IF* You are you going to really argue that the 95% WATER ISNT INSIDE RINGWOODITE, BUT IS IN FACT ALL WAY HIGHER UP, ABOVE THE OLIVINE, IN SUPERCRITICAL FLUID, CLOSER TO THE MANTLE WEDGE, ARGUE AGAINST FLOOD VOLCANISM.

What changes the pressure that much? .
What could possibly cause such a dramatic pressure change that the water (and only the water) is mitigated towards the surface.

You have the how.
Where's the why.

Repeat myself:

So... the slab fluid, in supercritical form, in the upper mantle, above 200km, accompanying the subduction plate flooded the earth now?

That's what you are now arguing.

So what does this have to do with the ringweoodite again?

That's where the most 'water' is.

It's like you think only your liquid water, and not all the motlen fluids would rise due that temperature change.

How you going to only purge water.

a reply to: cooperton

You still didn't answer the question. Do you know the volume, temperature, pressure at that particular time? The research is a laboratory experiment, not a real event that could be measured. The samples were extracted and analyzed spectroscopically - wait, I forgot - you don't think spectroscopy is a thing, especially for dating fossils.

Unless you have data from the actual time of this global flood, you're speculating. The research on super fluids means nothing in terms of an event that can't be tested.

That paper says absolutely nothing about super fluids in catastrophic floods. It's a 3D modeling experiment of deep subduction zones where minerals are recycled into deeper subduction zones. Once again, you cut and paste stuff that has absolutely zip to do with your topic. I suppose you think it makes you sound like you know something. Actually, it's just the opposite. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that these mechanisms caused or were created during a global flood.

Supercritical fluids are nothing new. They're used all the time in manufacturing. Coffee is decaffeinated using supercritical fluids. They're used in all sorts of extraction processes. That they occur in nature is nothing new or special.

I suggest you write a letter to the Journal of Supercritical Fluids. Ask them what they think of your "hypothesis" that has absolutely no experimental data to back it up.

www.sciencedirect.com...

About the journal








The Journal of Supercritical Fluids is an international journal devoted to the fundamental and applied aspects of pressurized substances and mixtures in the fluid state especially at conditions above the critical point including reactions, separations and chemical processes. Its aim is to provide …

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

You still didn't answer the question. Do you know the volume, temperature, pressure at that particular time? The research is a laboratory experiment, not a real event that could be measured.

Unless you have data from the actual time of this global flood, you're speculating. The research on super fluids means nothing in terms of an event that can't be tested.

Yeah the event occurring requires belief in what our ancestors wrote. I am merely showing that there are plausible mechanisms on earth that would allow this event to occur. I didn't even pull out the "it was a miracle" card yet.

I wanted to apologize for mocking you, you do have a way of triggering me lol. It is good when we can have cordial discussions. Best wishes, I'm gonna take a break for now I need to go focus on other things.

originally posted by: Degradation33


It's like you think only your liquid water, and not all the motlen fluids would rise due that temperature change.

How you going to only purge water.

Water is less dense than magma, it's not out of the question to suppose that some process was able to push out primarily less dense fluids out. But I am also sure a lot of magma also came out. This would explain a lot of igneous rock mountains.

Regardless, I'm gonna take a break from this. Chill out in the mean time, you seem like a cool person and this sort of seething hatred you're exhibiting is not your element.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

You still didn't answer the question. Do you know the volume, temperature, pressure at that particular time? The research is a laboratory experiment, not a real event that could be measured.

Unless you have data from the actual time of this global flood, you're speculating. The research on super fluids means nothing in terms of an event that can't be tested.

Yeah the event occurring requires belief in what our ancestors wrote. I am merely showing that there are plausible mechanisms on earth that would allow this event to occur. I didn't even pull out the "it was a miracle" card yet.

I wanted to apologize for mocking you, you do have a way of triggering me lol. It is good when we can have cordial discussions. Best wishes, I'm gonna take a break for now I need to go focus on other things.

It's not "plausible" unless you have experimental data. Speculation doesn't count.
Have a good break and Happy New Year.

a reply to: cooperton

Water is less dense than magma, it's not out of the question to suppose that some process was able to push out primarily less dense fluids out. But I am also sure a lot of magma also came out. This would explain a lot of igneous rock mountains.

In your mind you've totally won.

Congratulations?

Perhaps while you're chilling you can contemplate how the 'water', under lower pressure, makes it past the mantle wedge, which is also under reduced pressure.

And further how this reduced pressure doesn't also cause magma to rise to the surface, or anything else which might prevent the water being sublimated before it reaches the surface.

Seriously I want to know why screwing up the P/T of earth only effects the "water"?

"Last Word Aversarialist" notes:

And BTW, supercritical fluid at the depth of the MTZ IS THICKER THAN MELTS AND THINNER THAN AQUEOUS FLUID..

This quote from a paper you accepted again...

Under the high temperature and pressure conditions deep in the Earth, silicate and fluids can be completely mixed, forging a supercritical geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids.

You want that reversed, huh?
Doesn't sound right, like thick and thin should be switched.
Is it really saying at MTZ depth aqueous fluid is thicker than magmatic melts?

Is that true or do you think the paper screwed that up?

But that's in the deep in the Earth. You've now pivoted to the supercritical fluid under much lower P/T above 200 km, closer to the mantle wedge. You've shifted the hydrated region by 400 km.

And What's this mean?

We ascertain critical endpoints between aqueous fluids and sediment or high-Mg andesite (HMA) melts located, respectively, at 83-km and 92-km depths by using an in situ observation technique. These depths are within the mantle wedge underlying volcanic fronts, which are formed 90 to 200 km above subducting slabs. These data suggest that sediment-derived supercritical fluids, which are fed to the mantle wedge from the subducting slab, react with mantle peridotite to form HMA supercritical fluids. Such HMA supercritical fluids separate into aqueous fluids and HMA melts at 92 km depth during ascent. The aqueous fluids are fluxed into the asthenospheric mantle to form arc basalts, which are locally associated with HMAs in hot subduction zones.

Seriously, I don't know what this means, could you explain it?

a reply to: cooperton

* Kept waiting for you to answer the pressure question. There is a HUGE thing you're missing on this. And why I posted that originally. I was hoping you'd see what's wrong... conceptually.


FINAL COMMENT ON "SUPERCRITICAL" MANTLE WATER


Geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids.

But that's not what you're missing.

Let's look at this example.

They are showing that below 700°C the aqueous/silicate separate..



The Earth is 700 C at about 50 km, at most. If you use the typically used gradient of 25° C/km it's 700° 28 km down. It actually varies for a number of reasons like cold vs hot subduction zones.

The results aren't unsurprising. This is right on the edge of saline water surviving the P/T.

However, after 700° this is totally mixed supercritical fluid. Not silicate, not water.

IT CAN ONLY BE IN A SUPERCRITICAL FORM AFTER THIS POINT, RIGHT? PRESSURE ONLY GOES UP.

So if you insist water doesn't refer to...

(any water-related species such as hydrogen, hydroxyl and/or molecular water detected as O–H stretching with infrared spectroscopy.)

...or exist mostly in crystal, it must be entirely supercritical fluid above 700°, right?

But...

Where is the VAST majority of this "water"?

IN THE MANTLE TRANSITION ZONE.

The 700° supercritical point (the point of unmixing) IS WAY ABOVE the MTZ. Way way above it. Above wadsleyite, above olivine. Way ABOVE EVERYTHING of storage capacity.

The Transition zone is between 1565° and 1600° Celcius.

Hence, what's in the transition zone is either largely in hydrous polymorphs (as i still believe) or in a supercritical mix. A TOTAL MIX.

And yes I'm giving you supercritical fluid in the MTZ. Maybe concensus is wrong, maybe the wadsleyite and ringwoodite ISNT enough to explain the electrical conductivity???

It doesn't matter to your argument though.

Here's why.

Using that example, and considering supercritical form, for your theory to work, you have to force the P/T in THE MANTLE WHERE THIS H20 IS LOCATED to fall below 700° C and 0.94 GPa.

The 410 discontinuity has a pressure 14 times that. 14 GIGAPASCALS. The 660 discontinuity in 22 GPa.

IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THE 'WATER' EXISTS, WHETHER MIXED SUPERCRITICAL FLUID OR INSIDE POLYMORPH, IN ORDER TO SEPARATE IT YOU MUST REDUCE THE PRESSURE 14 to 22 TIMES OVER. Keep in mind the lower part of the MTZ is more hydrous then the upper part.

And this doesn't even consider ANY OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THAT POINT.

So back to the question.

What possible natural process could cause the pressure between the 410 and 660 discontinuity to fall 14 to 22 times over, which is necessary to separate H20 from silicate, a typical supercritical fluid in the mantle. And then flood Earth.

What could possibly cause this unmixing to happen? That's a huge required pressure drop. Not just "a little bit".