I can only imagine what our believing friends will conclude from this. There was enough flood water after all..

http://gu.com/p/3q486

(June 13, 2014 at 8:23 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: I can only imagine what our believing friends will conclude from this. There was enough flood water after all..

http://gu.com/p/3q486

Three times as much water as in the ocean is not sufficient to submerge all land on earth. Himalayas and Andes will remain as islands.

Quote:If just 1% of the weight of mantle rock located in the transition zone was water it would be equivalent to nearly three times the amount of water in our oceans, Jacobsen said.

The study used data from the USArray, a network of seismometers across the US that measure the vibrations of earthquakes, combined with Jacobsen’s lab experiments on rocks simulating the high pressures found more than 600km underground.

It produced evidence that melting and movement of rock in the transition zone – hundreds of kilometres down, between the upper and lower mantles – led to a process where water could become fused and trapped in the rock.

In other words, a lot of this is speculation and hypothesizing. It's exciting because it helps us to better understand how the planet formed and apparently it may confirm hypotheses from scientists who felt that there had to be water in the Earth's mantle. Creationists will probably latch onto this as evidence of the Biblical flood. But I would bet that given time, what we learn would not further any sort of global flood narrative, at which point creationists would insist that the scientists must be doing it wrong.

(June 13, 2014 at 8:23 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: I can only imagine what our believing friends will conclude from this. There was enough flood water after all..

http://gu.com/p/3q486

Wasn't the flood supposed to have covered all land?

Quote:Jacobsen told the New Scientist that the hidden water might also act as a buffer for the oceans on the surface, explaining why they have stayed the same size for millions of years. "If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out," he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/...on-surface

And never mind the lack of any evidence for a flood of that scale...

Actually, this is old, and incomplete, news.

The upper bound of the total inventory of water in earth's mantle by modern estimate have long since gone way beyond 3 times the total volume in the ocean. 20-50 times is not unreasonable.

Most of the water in the earth is likely to be permenently sequested in the mantle and have never and would never come out. The question is how much of the water is in communication with the surface (ie the particular molecules are likely to reach the surface at least once during earth's life, certainly not all at once)

Also, the oceans have not remained the same size. Early in earth's history the total volume of water on the surface was much greater. Some estimate 50% greater. Water have been steadily consumed into the mantle at subduction zones since at least 2.5 billion years ago, and the consumed water has not returned to the surface through volcanos and other forms of outgassing at nearly the same rate as it is being consumed. So total inventory of surface water on earth has steadily decreased.

If plate tectonics does not stop, then the subduction process will likely consume all the oceans on the surface of the earth long before the sun goes red giant. When that happens, there will only be a small isolated lakes and oasis on the surface subsisting on the water vapor being outgassed from any ongoing volcanic activities, balanced by the loss of water vapor to space.

Home sweet home Chuck..lol.

Quote: Creationists will probably latch onto this as evidence of the Biblical flood.

They are the personification of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." In fact, pretty much "no knowledge" describes them.

Still, their fucking bible does not say that ringwoodite fell for 40 days.

(June 13, 2014 at 11:34 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: Creationists will probably latch onto this as evidence of the Biblical flood.

They are the personification of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." In fact, pretty much "no knowledge" describes them.

Still, their fucking bible does not say that ringwoodite fell for 40 days.

If when geologists say "there is enough water in the earth", creationists believe them, who do creationists not believe them when the same geologists say "it has never been on the surface"?

(June 13, 2014 at 11:02 am)Chuck Wrote: Most of the water in the earth is likely to be permenently sequested in the mantle and have never and would never come out. The question is how much of the water is in communication with the surface (ie the particular molecules are likely to reach the surface at least once during earth's life, certainly not all at once)

Exactly. I hated the use of 'ocean' in the title. As I read the article I immediately thought that if we squeezed all humans of their water content we could make a modest sized lake.

If you squeezed all the bullshit out of creatards you could make a gigantic-sized turd.