The predictions of Walt Brown

I didn't see any link ... could you re-post it?{added by edit} Oops, never mind ... I see that Loudmouth's re-posted it.This message has been edited by JonF, 01-21-2005 16:38 AM

Exactly. Walt says that "About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth’s surface." (The Hydroplate Theory: Assumptions). That's about 669,000,000 cubic kilometers (160,500,000 cubic miles) of water (see The water cycle: Water storage in oceans). I can't find a good number for the temperature at that depth right now, but at 9.1 kilometers (5.6 miles) it's been measured at about 265°C (509°F) (in the KTB Borehole; see the "Temperature Profiles" figure and caption on page 21). That's only about half as deep as Walt proposes; at his 10 mile depth we could easily be talking in the vicinity of 500°C (932°F). Letting that out to atmospheric pressure would be a boiler explosion of a magnitude we can't even begin to comprehend! Talk about the flesh being flayed from the bones of every living creature!

Of course, a few bacteria from Yellowstone would still be around.

Nope, you missed it completely. Loudmouth agrees that Walt's caclulations are correct as far as they go, but they are incomplete and don't go as far as is necessary to be accurate, and noted exactly how they are incomplete.How cool does Walt think the water was, and for what reason? I couldn't find ianswers to either question on his site.Note the evidence that I posted ... go ye and do likelwise.This message has been edited by JonF, 01-21-2005 18:15 AM

Cold fusion is almost as looney as creationism.There is a mountain of evidence that the interior of the Earth is hot, hotter as you go down. Many experiments from many disciplines indicate this.The best theory that fits all the available evidence is that Walt's ideas are impossible. Time for you to put up or shut up ... what do you or Walt think is the temperature ten miles down, and for what reason do you choose whatever number you do?Evidence!

OK, where is it? All you've posted so far is ungrounded speculation.

Yup. and you have not posted any evidence. It's still just a fairy tale.

You've numbed us with your ceaseless spewing of fantastic (in the old sense of the word) and downright silly opium dreams.Your "explanation" is valueless and of no interest without EVIDENCE.

Laterally upwards, hum?You'll believe anything that agrees with your prejudices.Supersonic steam erupting from anywhere on Earth would not just squirt out of the atmosphere. But, pretending for a moment that it would, you're back to the energy dissipation problem of the vapor-canopy-outside-the-atmosphere. The water way up there has much more potential energy than the water returned to Earth. That energy gets dissipated as heat in the atmosphere as the water re-enters. Frying everything. Tell your pal cosmo. He's proposing that the heat in the Earth today was caused by friction as the continents danced around. You still propose that the atmosphere was removed and life survived that? Ah, so you do realize that the steam would erupt laterally too, killing everything. Causing earthquakes that would make the recent one that caused the tsunami look like a kitten's hiccup. Nope. The behavior of water and steamis one thing we understand extermely well. It doesn't spontaneously condense like that. It requires a colder reservoir.

Energy is conserved. If this presumed ejected water falls back to Earth, all the kinetic energy it originally had (which gets converted to potential energy at its highest altitude) is converted to heat during the fall. Half of today's oceans falling hundreds of miles! That's a alot of energy."Pressing intro the rain below", whatever that means, is irrelevant. The energy that started as kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and the only place it can go is into the atmosphere as heat.

IOW, you have no evidence. As espected.

Well, sorry, but you are totally ignorant of the subject. That's why you don't see the problem.Yes, rain can only fall so fast in the atmosphere, but that's irrelevant. I didn't say anythign about speed. I just said "energy is conserved", and that's all you need to know.Energy is conserved. It is neither ceated nor destroyed. When the water shoots out of the ground, it has kinetic energy (lots of kinetic energy, if it's going to it make it out of the atmosphere). When the water is back on the surface of the Earth, it doesn't have that kinetic energy anymore. The energy doesn't get destroyed; it goes somewhere. The only place it can go is into the Earth's atmosphere, as heat. How it turns into heat is an interesting question, but the fact that it turns into heat is not a question at all. It's just a fact.Now, consider a raindrop falling in the atmosphere. Yes, it can only go so fast. Why? Because of friction with the air. And what does that friction with the air do? It dissipates some of the energy of the fall of the raindrop as heat that warms the atmosphere. The rest of the energy of the fall of the raindrop gets converted into heat when the raindrop strikes the Earth. All the kinetic or potential energy that the raindrop had is converted to heat, no matter how fast it falls.For normal rain, the effect is small; but for half the current contents of the ocean (which is more than fifty thousand times more than all the water in the atmosphere, see Where is Earth's water located?) falling from hundreds of miles high (normal raindrops fall less than five miles), the effect would be gigantic ... heating the atmosphere enough to destroy all life.The amount of heat added to the atmosphere is the amount of kinetic energy the water had when it jetted out, plus whatever heat transfers as the water goes by. No matter how the water gets back to Earth, no matter how fast a raindrop can fall, no matter anything. That's the heat added to the atmosphere.Of course, if the water jetting out doesn't have enough kinetic energy to make it out of the atmosphere, then the effect is much smaller ... but then all the heat in the water (manifested as high temperature) transfers to the atmosphere rather than being cooled in space, and everybody's dead again.

And, for the third time, everyone would die of suffocation. Or from the far-more-than-hurricane-force winds that would create.

A supersonic plume of superheated live steam is gentle? It would blow a good portion of the atmosphere out to space, lowering the pressure in that area, and causing incredible winds to flow into tath area to releive the pressure differnetion.I notice that you totally ignored the facts I laid out showing how the atmosphere would be heated when the water returned.

I think that a jet of superheated steam in oputer space would radiate heat fairly fast and condense to tiny drops and then to ice particles. But I could be wrong.He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If the jets have enough energy to get to space, they have enough energy to fry everybody when they fall back to Earth. If the jets don't have enough energy to get to space, they fry everybody by conductive heaat transfer.