from the Professor-Lidenbrock's-Neighborhood dept.
CoySow writes:
"The mineral ringwoodite was only ever been found in meteorites. But now a lucky discovery of a first terrestrial sample preserved under high pressure in a $10 diamond from Brazil, indicates that there are vast amounts of water in the "transition zone" around 410 to 660 kilometres below our planet's surface, the ultimate origin of water in the Earth's hydrosphere.
If the sample is representative of that part of the deep Earth, the amount of water there could be 'about the same as the mass of all the world's oceans combined.' That, in turn, changes our understanding of the way water cycles through our planet, and has implications for the way tectonic plates and volcanoes behave.
A lot of that water was likely carried down by tectonic plates that were originally at the bottom of the oceans, "\'water that we would call recycled, that comes from Earth's surface and then is put back down into the Earth.' Although scientists hadn't acknowledged until recently that the planet's water might make these kinds of underground voyages, it makes sense. That's because huge amounts of water from the depths of the Earth are constantly being spewed by volcanoes into the oceans and atmosphere. 'If that weren't replenished, then the interior of the Earth would just become a dry desert. So it's part of what we call the water cycle,' the study's lead author notes."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:43AM
Creationists will be claiming this is proof of Noah's flood. I guarantee it.
(Score: 1) by timbim on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:48AM
Queue reddit meme
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:20PM
What else is in that queue?
(Score: 4, Funny) by lx on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:26AM
How fitting. I've always thought of creationists as the 10$ diamonds of humanity.
(Score: 3, Informative) by gishzida on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:31AM
Forgive me for a "reductio ad absurdum" argument using some tortured "creationist" logic:
[satire]
The Creator created starting creating the Universe on a Saturday Night [Remember the pattern is "first there was evening then morning..."]. Nursing a walloping hang-over on Sunday Night, It created the "creationists" on the second day of the week. How can we know the Creator had a hangover? Isn't it obvious? Who in their right mind would create such an impossible thing as a "creationist"?
How can we know this event actually happened on this day? Simple-- This was the only day of the week God had nothing "good" to say, so It followed Its mother's advice and said nothing. Since The Creator did not pronounce that day good then we then know for certain that this day was the only one on which the "creationists" could be created. Why would this be so? Because it is obvious to true human rationalists that "creationists" are not good, therefore they must have been created on the only day of the week that was not pronounced good.
One might wonder why "creationists" would have been created on Sunday night / Monday morning when humanity wasn't actually created until Thursday night / Friday morning. The answer is as simple as it is obvious--- "creationists" can not be *Human*.
God created them on the second day so that real people might *think* "creationists" are Human when it is obvious that they are not. God did this as a test of a real Human's faith in rationality -- just like It created a book which says impossible things were done in 6 days to prove whether or not you and I are smart enough to have dominion over a whole planet. After all if we can't keep our facts straight we might miss the new ideas embodied in a $10 diamond which proves the legendary "waters under the earth" actually exist.
[/satire]
Ouch! That hurt! I think I've bruised the crenelations in my brain...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gottabeme on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:29PM
It's possible to believe that God created the universe and also believe that the creation accounts in Genesis aren't literal.
The accounts in Genesis are similar in several ways to other creation accounts from the ANE. It seems likely that God inspired a creation story that the people could relate to, something familiar. Naturally, since the people lacked scientific knowledge about the nature of the universe, such a story wouldn't be literal, nor scientifically accurate.
It's disappointing to see people demand answers from the Bible that it was never intended to provide. It's an ancient document, so we should not simply read it through modern eyes, but also through ancient ones, so that we can try to discern what information the writers actually intended to convey.
Ultimately, the point of the creation accounts in Genesis is not to explain how God created the universe, but to say that he did create the universe. How he did it is not very important. In fact, it seems unreasonable to expect human beings to even be able to comprehend how God created the universe from nothing. We can't create matter or energy from nothing. We can't even fully understand how matter and energy work.
So instead of trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, we should squeeze it for turnip juice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:00PM
Bravo! Well said! There are many 'truths' in the Bible but it was never intended to be used as a science journal or technical manual.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by resignator on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:49PM
"Ultimately, the point of the creation accounts in Genesis is not to explain how God created the universe, but to say that he did create the universe. How he did it is not very important. In fact, it seems unreasonable to expect human beings to even be able to comprehend how God created the universe from nothing. We can't create matter or energy from nothing. We can't even fully understand how matter and energy work."
I would ask why are begging the question "who" made the universe when there is zero evidence to support a "who". When was the last time you seen a deity or a God make something? Who made that God? is it turtles all the way down? You say it's not important to know how the universe got here but that is the ultimate role of science...asking how and why. Claiming we will be not be able to comprehend is massively ignorant and lazy. We would still be sitting in caves if everyone used your thought process.
Who is claiming the universe was made from nothing? No scientist is. This is the same old creationist tripe that has been refuted a million times. BTW, "nothing" (a va has been observed to produce virtual particles (something). These virtual particles interacting with each other is what causes the universe to expand. We know this BECAUSE we didnt just throw up our hands and say "god did it and we cant possibly understand".
"We can't even fully understand how matter and energy work."
We have the most complete model ever produced and we get closer every day to a grand unified theory. Sure there are things we dont know but that is FAR from being completely in the dark.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:24PM
It's possible to believe that God created the universe and also believe that the creation accounts in Genesis aren't literal.
This is true. But that person would no longer be a Creationist.
Definition: [reference.com]
Creationism - noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:23PM
Holy shit! (Officially known as 'Pope Poop')
After coming up with that, you must have a whopper of a headache!
Can I get you a Tylonal 10 brother?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday March 13 2014, @08:24AM
From a tiny, almost invisible crystal in one diamond, they extrapolate entire oceans? What is it about some scientists, that they feel like they need to sensationalize their findings.
They found an unusual mineral that only forms under massive pressure. This crystal contains 1.5% water by weight. That says nothing at all about how common the crystal is, or how common water is at such depths - just that this particular bit of dirt happened to be wet when squashed.
Granted, I am only an amateur geologist at best, but...geez...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Informative) by unauthorized on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:30AM
No, they consider that an evidence for the existing theory that there are vast underground oceans.
Yes, yes, I'm one of those heretics who RTFA.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Thursday March 13 2014, @05:32PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Informative) by terryk30 on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:11PM
(Remember that "you are proposing a solution" form-reply meme on /.? One is needed one for cases like this.)
In the Science Daily article, there's an image that shows the "transition zone" between the upper and lower mantle, between 400 and 700 km in depth.
Graham Pearson, the lead scientist, is quoted as saying "That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world's oceans put together." That's all that was said. Notice that this layer is about 30x as thick as the surface oceans and is uninterrupted, so it wouldn't take much water content for it to have as much water as all the world's oceans.
Also notice Pearson said "might" - the conservative language of a professional scientist.
It's only the SN story headline which is sensationalizing ("Oceans of Water..."), and which you are echoing. The summary hints it's a little more complicated than that. Even if you just skim an article or two, the Science Daily headline, "...vast 'oceans' beneath Earth's surface..." does have 'oceans' in quotes. The CBC article headline refers to an "oceans' worth of water".
When it comes to the implications of the gem having 1.5% by weight water, and the easy, obvious issues like occurrence, representativeness, mineral formation, and interior models that nonspecialists like you and I can think of - I'll trust the professional geologists' expertise.
(Score: 3, Funny) by elgrantrolo on Thursday March 13 2014, @08:49AM
I thought the mantle would be extremely hot, like lava.. I wonder how this works? Maybe it's an opportunity for a sequel to that film where the Earth core is kickstarted with nuclear bombs.
(Score: 1) by MaximumFerry on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:24AM
The Core is osom.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:48AM
I've seen water mentioned, I've seen no mention about liquid water.
At those temperatures and pressure (actually above 374℃=674K and 22atm=323psi), water becomes a supercritical fluid [wikipedia.org]: density closer to the liquid, low viscosity and no superficial tension like a gas (i.e supercritical water is not wet, just hot).
As for the water circulation inside the Earth crust and under, you can start your "journey" considering hydrotermal circulation [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:30PM
Get yer supercritical grits! Supercritical grits! Natalie Portman covered with supercritical grits!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Rousay on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:26AM
I bet some guys just got high rather than doing any real research and watched LOTR, saw Gandalf's awesome fight with the balrog and thought, shit, of COURSE, 41 times deeper than the mariana trench there starts a gigantic collection of water greater than all oceans combined! No wonder Gandalf survived!
(Score: 3, Funny) by gallondr00nk on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:48AM
I'd be worried if it was actually oceans of jam or chocolate milkshake deep within the earth.
Or oceans of lemonade, if you've read Charles Fourier :)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:33PM
I did. I was transformed.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:22AM
The title escapes me, but they talked about how water from inside the earth overwhelms the surface causing all the land to disappear. In time the only thing left are floating garbage heaps and a oil tanker that also had a gas refinery on board (and all the chemicals needed to make gas). While the main researcher was kind of wooden, the female research assist was pretty hot. I was left a little confused as to how all the people on fared, but the documentary took place near what was left of the Himalayan Mountains.
The primary research vessel was amazing and I still don't understand why they sacrificed it when it clearly was a valuable aid in further research. Anyway, if you come across this video, it is something to watch.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by ezekielsays on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:19PM
This makes me think of the book "Flood" by Stephen Baxter.
Good reading, though adding to its scientific credibility is a little disturbing.
Go ahead and play the blues if it'll make you happy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:41PM
Same as it ever was [dailymotion.com]. I love it when art sort of does science like that.