and that planet will have significantly less mass afterwards.
vastly different from the one we have now
See, those are the kind of qualifying statements that require something more than just 'feelies' to support. Is it really significant? In what way? How do you know? Why should we believe you? Why not check it before saying something like that and risk sounding silly?
1) I already explained this, but clearly you need sources, because you can't be arsed to do it yourself, and instead want to appear morally superior, while not contributing any math yourself either.
So, here they are.
The percentage of the earth's mass that is constituted by liquid water is very small. ~.023%.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1997-08/868365319.Es.r.htmlMost people turn their brains off at this point. The issue, is not how much of the earth's mass is water, but how much of it is HYDRATED SILICATE MINERAL, and what geological processes are required for that silicate mineral to remain in the face of thermal decomposition from the planet's internal heating.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1997-08/868365319.Es.r.htmlThey say that at an upper bound, the mantle could contain the same quantity of water in the form of hydrate minerals as the oceans contain. That brings the percentage, occupied just by water, up to ~.046 percent.
Now that we have the mantle, and the oceans-- what about the crust and the atmosphere?
The atmosphere's mass is about 0.014% of earth's mass. (Bringing our potential amount of lost material up to .06%)
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-11/943288749.Es.r.htmlThe lithosphere (crust) accounts for approximately 2.7% of the earth's mass. So, what percentage of the crust would be impacted by the removal of the atmosphere?
Clay minerals account for about 5% of the crust,
http://www.sandatlas.org/composition-of-the-earths-crust/with an average water content of clay mineral being hard to find. Clays are the end product of feldspars and other silicate minerals being weathered and hydrated by the presence of liquid water. A good breakdown of what percentage of clays are of what species is hard to pin down. (nobody really seems to care.) Since what we care about is the water content, the best I can find is this source:
http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=igsarwhich on page 334, says this:
Clay, according to Blair, is a mixture of silica and the silicates of aluminum, calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium. The silicates are hydrated and as a result they may contain from 6 to 12 percent of water chemically combined.
So, a ballpark mid-range estimate of 8% of 5% of 2.6% of the earth's mass (at the crust) will be will be chemically bound water, in the form of clay. So, again, just by combining the removal of the atmosphere and oceans, with total crustal subduction, (or heavy bombardment with deep penetrating ionizing radiation) we get an approximate of .025%
This is hedging closer and closer to .1% of the earth's mass being impacted, just from the removal of water alone. This completely discounts the action of the liquid water on previously chemically bound mineral complexes containing transition metals, like iron, in creating free iron oxides. When those are subducted into the mantle, under anhydrous conditions, you get a release of free oxygen radicals, and oxygen accounts for some whopping 46% of the mass of the lithosphere.
By now, it shouldnt be too terribly hard to figure out how the early loss of the atmosphere of the earth would have radically altered its mineral composition, and thus its ultimate mass.
But of course, I was totally pulling this all out of my ass, and had no clue whatsoever about such things as geology or chemistry, which would have been magically approximated, somehow, by a naive mathematical model with "spherical cows.", leaving off with just the loss of the atmosphere itself. (which by now, I should have thoroughly shown to be inaccurate.)
2) how do you know it is significant?
Chemistry, do you speak it? The conditions depicted are not suitable for the formation of these mineral complexes, and the resulting crust will be significantly less oxygen rich! We know this from experiments exposing rocks to ionizing radiation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037567429290048D3) How do you know?
Because I like to educate myself, that's why. While I am not motivated enough to dig out an analytical lab from my butthole, I am motivated enough to read the work of people who have.
4) Why should we believe you?
Because I am willing to point out the documents others have made, when asked-- which is more than you have been willing to do.
Myself, and it's fine if you don't care, I've lost all respect for your opinions - you've never shown any deeper understanding outside how to use google. Dodging relatively simple mathematical exercises like they're the equivalent of performing genesis doesn't help.
Anyhow, I'm outta here. Take what I said as you will - use it or lose it.
Yup. Just as I have lost respect for your rebuttals. Ciao.
Author
Topic: Space Thread (Read 366573 times)