Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
716 online now:
Dredge, Parasomnium, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 712 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,166 Year: 6,278/6,534 Month: 471/650 Week: 9/232 Day: 9/28 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cambrian Explosion and Hydrosphere-Spending Hypothesis
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 28 (221274)
07-01-2005 10:16 PM


Mankind has been solicitous about the ascent of oceanic surface since middle period of 20 century, while it become warmer globally, and it became a fashionable topic in media movies and popular article.

However, some Chinese propose a new idea named ¡°hydrosphere-spending hypothesis¡± recently: Water in the hydrosphere of the earth is always spent in the evolutional process of the earth. For long time scope, instead of the ascent of the oceanic surface, the difficulty for mankind and whole biosphere is the decent of oceanic surface.

According to ¡°hydrosphere-spending hypothesis¡±, the process of losing water in the hydrosphere contains three main links:

A, the methane and oxygen are produced in the biosphere while the water is spent;

B£¬the oxygen is absorbed with interior substance of the earth in the process sea-floor spreading with the convection of earth mantle;

C£¬ the methane is decomposed to hydrogen by ultraviolet radiation of the sun, and then the hydrogen escaped to outer space with the factors thermal movement of hydrogen atom, earth rotation and pressure of the sun-light.

According to ¡°hydrosphere-spending hypothesis¡±, forepart of the earth was surrounded by water completely, no land basset out the surface of the ocean, though the lithospheres of continental type and oceanic type had existed.

According to ¡°hydrosphere-spending hypothesis¡±, Cambrian explosion was the period of corresponding to first land appears in the ocean. Biosphere became flourishing, and hydrosphere spending is also accelerated accordingly. It is estimated, the hydrosphere has lost two times water of that in the ocean nowadays.

You are welcomed to oppugn and renew ¡°hydrosphere-spending hypothesis¡±.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-02-2005 10:24 AM benllinliu has not replied
 Message 4 by roxrkool, posted 07-05-2005 2:30 AM benllinliu has replied
 Message 17 by benllinliu, posted 10-30-2005 4:01 AM benllinliu has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 28 (221999)
07-05-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by roxrkool
07-05-2005 2:30 AM


Thank you for your post, I also am grateful to administor for his letter so that I know your post.

Yes. As I consider, there was not land in Cambrian too. I guess, The real land appeared after Cambrian Explosion about 30-60 million years.

I am sorry, I do not know much about "the Archean Witwatersrand Basin?". If possible, would you please describe the Basin and related facts? I also try to learn the related knowledge, so that further discussion can be made.

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 07-05-2005 08:00 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by roxrkool, posted 07-05-2005 2:30 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 07-05-2005 8:34 PM benllinliu has not replied
 Message 7 by Matt P, posted 07-06-2005 2:28 PM benllinliu has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 28 (222914)
07-10-2005 4:16 AM


the process is just carrying out.....
Thank you for your advise, and I shall learn the knowledge that you pointed.

Indeed, it is very hard to demonstrated "the hydrosphere spending hypothesis" according to the knowledge on the history of the earth.

However, the process of hydrosphere spending is a process on the march, which is just carrying out now. So, it can probably be judgeed by some modern determination.

For example, the escape of hydrogen should be a observable process.
We have proposed:

We suppose, the hydrogen in ¡°Geocorona¡± is produced from the methane when it is decomposed by the sun¡¯s ultraviolet radiation. According to the kinetic theory of molecule, the speed of hydrogen atoms is 4 times of that for oxygen at the same temperature, and it is close the escape velocity of the earth when the hydrogen atom is under circumstance of high temperature in the exosphere. ¡°Geocorona¡± is an obvious symbol of the escaping hydrogen, however, as our understanding, it is not equivalent to the main portion of the escaping hydrogen. The hydrogen would escape to outer space from the atmosphere through 4 steps within 24 hours as follows:

1, the methane diffuses up in the troposphere when the stratosphere becomes high at night;

2, the methane enters the stratosphere when the stratosphere becomes low at forenoon;

3, the methane in the stratosphere is decomposed to hydrogen atom by the ultraviolet radiation from the sun during noon. The decomposed hydrogen atoms can not escape away immediately because of the pressure of the sunlight, so the atoms will be gathered in stratosphere for a period;

4, the gathered hydrogen atoms escape to the outer space in dusk. The speed of the escaping hydrogen atoms is accumulated according to three factors: the kinetic theory, the pressure of the sunlight and the rotation of the earth.

The beam of escaping hydrogen should be not far from the equator as the earth rotating speed at the equator is fastest, so the escaping beam of the hydrogen should be round the equator, which can be called ¡°a arc escaping beam of setting sun¡±. Some part of the hydrogen with lower speed in the escaping beam would append to Geocorona, while the main part of escaping hydrogen would run away in the arc scaping beam of setting sun.

Since the escaped hydrogen atoms come primarily from the hydrosphere, so the residual oxygen would renew to atmosphere naturally as the water in the hydrosphere is spent away gradually.


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by benllinliu, posted 07-10-2005 4:18 AM benllinliu has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 28 (222915)
07-10-2005 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by benllinliu
07-10-2005 4:16 AM


Re: the process is just carrying out.....
My English is not well, so I can not say these well.

I am soory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by benllinliu, posted 07-10-2005 4:16 AM benllinliu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-10-2005 12:51 PM benllinliu has replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 28 (225079)
07-21-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
07-10-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Language
Thank you for your post. i am sorry for answering later, since i am busy as an engineer these days.

"the hydrogen atoms would be dynamic but their motion random, why would then not just recombine with oxygen and carbon to return to methane?"

the problem is interesting.

Certainy, lots of hydrogen atom can recombine with oxygen. however, it can decompose to atoms of hydrogrn and oxygen again with sun's ray, when it under the sunshine.

the combination of the hydrogrn and oxygen should be more stable in the night, nevertheless, the lots of hydrogen atoms have escaped with tha ray of setting sun, as described previously. and some details will be posted in future.

you are welcome to discuss "the hydrosphere spending hypothesis"!

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 07-21-2005 09:07 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-10-2005 12:51 PM jar has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 28 (225424)
07-22-2005 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
07-10-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Language
Furthermore, the circumstance on upper atmosphere is very hot and very scarce, this make against the reaction of the hydrogen and oxygen to form their chemical combination.

Please point out the mistake of the hyfrosphere spending hypothesis, if any;

Please develop the hyfrosphere spending hypothesis, and introduce the hypothesis to the world, if it is on the correct direction for understanding our world.

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 07-22-2005 10:38 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-10-2005 12:51 PM jar has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 28 (235285)
08-21-2005 4:35 PM


E v C reported in China
The Controversy of Evolution versus Creation in US has been reported in China.

In China, Darwinism is ordinary mainstream. However, Creation theory is introduced simply in www in Chinese these days, such as
http://tech.sina.com.cn/d/2005-08-21/0815699225.shtml

whether Evolution or Creation, it must be long and hard topic in science.


  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 28 (235287)
08-21-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
07-10-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Language
I find, Jar is just on line.

You are welcome to post on this topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-10-2005 12:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 08-21-2005 4:44 PM benllinliu has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 28 (255587)
10-30-2005 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by benllinliu
07-01-2005 10:16 PM


the oxygen is absorbed in the process of some burst of volcano
A old news: a volcano on Salvador bursted out on Oct. 1,2005, it contains many burning lapis.

I think, for the "burning lapis", some oxygen must be absorbed.

I would like some detail analysis for the problem, as the first step, I would like some person provide some detsil for the volcano on Salvador.

I want to know:

1, how much oxygen has been absorbed in a such volcano burst?

2, is there some process to recruit the oxygen? besides from "hydrosphere spending process" according to "hydrosphere spending hypothesis" proposed in the post.

3, if it is true that the oxygen is absorbed with process of valcano burst, why we do not notice such an important topic for lang time?

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 10-30-2005 04:35 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by benllinliu, posted 07-01-2005 10:16 PM benllinliu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by roxrkool, posted 11-01-2005 8:12 AM benllinliu has replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 28 (255973)
11-01-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by roxrkool
11-01-2005 8:12 AM


Re: the oxygen is absorbed in the process of some burst of volcano
thank you for your post.

I want to say, some matter was burning surrund the volcano, the oxygen would be absorbed from atmosphere with the substance from inner of the earth.

I do not understand the meaning of the word "lap???". As my understanding, it probably mean "hot stone" arround the volcano.

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 11-01-2005 09:40 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by roxrkool, posted 11-01-2005 8:12 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 28 (256101)
11-01-2005 8:37 PM


the topic is also dicussed on science forum
the topic is also dicussed on science forum these days.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=625&start=15


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bernd, posted 11-05-2005 5:35 PM benllinliu has replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 28 (257141)
11-05-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by bernd
11-05-2005 5:35 PM


Re: the topic is also dicussed on science forum
I am glad for reading your expert post.

In general, as I considered, the methane prodused from biosphere is much more than 600 M (600,000,000)tons each year, so some further and rapid decomposing methane channel must be introduced.

I shall further read your articles refered, then give another post in detail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bernd, posted 11-05-2005 5:35 PM bernd has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 28 (257223)
11-06-2005 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by bernd
11-05-2005 5:35 PM


the evidence of methane being decomposed in upper atmosphere
Thank you for your post.

I have read the article [2], It said first:

"
“Methane’s globally averaged atmospheric surface abundance in 1998 was 1,745 ppb (see Figure 4.1), corresponding to a total burden of about 4,850 Tg(CH4). The uncertainty in the burden is small (±5%) because the spatial and temporal distributions of tropospheric and stratospheric CH4 have been determined by extensive high-precision measurements and the tropospheric variability is relatively small. For example, the Northern Hemisphere CH4 abundances average about 5% higher than those in the Southern Hemisphere. Seasonal variations, with a minimum in late summer, are observed with peak-to-peak amplitudes of about 2% at mid-latitudes. The average vertical gradient in the troposphere is negligible, ***but CH4 abundances in the stratosphere decrease rapidly with altitude, *** e.g., to 1,400 ppb at 30 km altitude in the tropics and to 500 ppb at 30 km in high latitude northern winter.
"

I think, follow remark
"
***CH4 abundances in the stratosphere decrease rapidly with altitude, *** e.g., to 1,400 ppb at 30 km altitude in the tropics and to 500 ppb at 30 km in high latitude northern winter.
”

is very important, and it should be considered carefully.

There are two possible cause and corresponding treating manner:

1, the methane cannot get up to the upper atmosphere at all, so its abundance is fewer than that in the troposphere naturally, and this mean that the methane loss process in upper atmosphere should also fewer than that in troposphere, and it can be neglected at last;

2, the methane can get up to the upper atmosphere from the troposphere, and it is decomposed quickly in the upper atmosphere, so its abundance in the upper atmosphere is fewer than that in troposphere. In this case, the methane loss process in upper atmosphere should be an important channel for the methane loss.

I would like to choose the second one since no reason to choose the first one. I think, so much as, the fact of that “1,400 ppb at 30 km altitude in the tropics and to 500 ppb at 30 km in high latitude northern winter” , can be considered as an evidence for that the methane can be destroyed quickly in upper atmosphere: the gas( containing oxygen,nitrogen etc. ) is with ordinary abundance of methane when it just get up to upper atmosphere in the tropic, then the methane is decomposed by sunlight, so its abundance get fewer and fewer before the gas return to troposphere in high latitude. This means that a lot of methane is decomposed in upper atmosphere, and all related detail should be reconsidered!

As I know from a book named “carbon cycle of the earth system”(by Banqin Chen et,al, in Chinese) the pure carbon equivalence of total organic matter produced in the world each year is about 60,000 Tg(C)/yr, contains about 21,000 Tg(C)/yr from forest, 3,200 Tg(C)/yr from wetland, 6,800 Tg(C)/yr. I think, the total methane gross per year, 600 Tg(CH4)/yr, is only about 1% of organic matter to change as methane and other 99% will be changed to carbon dioxide, this seems too few to the total for the methane. Perhaps, it is wetland that the gross of the methane should be about 600 Tg(CH4)/yr, where the carbon equivalence of organic matter produced is about 3,200 Tg(C)/yr, if 20% gross of the organic matter turns into methane.

At last, instead 1% of organic matter turn into methane, we would probably validate within next 10 years that about 10% of organic matter produced every year in the earth turn into methane which means other way for the loss of methane. If so, the research work will enriches our knowledge on our earth.

This is a large and interesting research work, a lots of details should be deliberated. I would like you and other people to take part in the work, combine for the possible discovery.

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 11-06-2005 03:06 AM

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 01-29-2006 09:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bernd, posted 11-05-2005 5:35 PM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bernd, posted 11-06-2005 9:57 AM benllinliu has replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 28 (257228)
11-06-2005 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by bernd
11-05-2005 5:35 PM


Re: the topic is also dicussed on science forum
Some further reply will be made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bernd, posted 11-05-2005 5:35 PM bernd has not replied

  
benllinliu
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 28 (257564)
11-07-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by bernd
11-06-2005 9:57 AM


the discussion on the process of hydrosphere spending
Dear Bernd:

Thank you for your earnest post, I shall give a simple reply first.

You wrote:
"First a question, I‘m not sure what you exactly mean with upper atmosphere, the layers above the mesopause? "

In general, the words “upper atmosphere” in my posts means the layers above the troposphere.

You wrote:
"When I understand your model for hydrogen escape correctly, you are assuming temperatures of 1000° K of the hydrogen atom (deduced from this post [1] ). I agree that at this temperature a considerable part of the atoms would escape into outer space. But a quick look at this link[2] shows that such temperatures are only reached in the thermosphere at about 300 km altitude, temperatures in the stratosphere are much lower, less than 300 K. In other words to defend your hypothesized mechanism you would have to demonstrate a substantial methane flux from the stratosphere at least to the thermosphere."

Before the escape process of the hydrogen according to the “hydrosphere spending hypothesis”is discussed, I would like to refer the atmospheric concept of “uneven layer”, with which I understand well in Chinese, however, I cannot confirm the corresponding term in English for the concept. It is said by the concept of “uneven layer”, which contains thermosphere and mesosphere, the rate of hydrogen in the layer is much higher than that in troposphere.

I would like to point out, the escape process of the hydrogen contains several steps, and it needs not the methane to reach thermosphere where the hydrogen escapes.

As I considered, as the first step, the methane reaches the stratosphere in the night, when there is no sunlight, so temperature of stratosphere would drop, and the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere would become faint in some degree. The methane also can be considered to climb up to upper atmosphere in day, however, as we considered, it should occur mainly in night, and, as referred in previous post, it should climb mainly at the tropics.

As the second step, the methane will be decomposed. It is obviously, the methane should decomposed in the day with sunlight. And, I suppose, the decomposing process would occur around ozonosphere, where is not very high.

The decomposed carbon from the methane will combine with oxygen to form dioxide carbon, which remains in the atmosphere, then it returns probably to biosphere again. As for the decomposed hydrogen atoms, some of them would get higher and higher to thermosphere in the “uneven layer”. Certainly, some of them would combine with oxygen to form water molecules, some of which would return to hydrosphere, and other would also be decomposed to hydrogen atoms.

As I considered, the escape process of the hydrogen atoms should take place in thermosphere, where the trmpersture is higher than of 1000°K . It would be worthy to point out in some detail, the escape of the hydrogen can not disperse at all direction(s) sccording to "hydrosphere spending hypothesis". It cannot go to the sun, because of the pressure of the sunlight, it cannot also go out in the night, because there is no sunlight, so there is no thermal dynamics. It cannot also go out on the morning. I would like to point out, the hydrogen only could escape out with setting sun!

The escape process is taken place in thermosphere, if the altitude is about 300-1500-km, and if the latitude is around of the earth about from 30° to +30°, which corresponds to 7000-km length. Furthermore, combining the altitude and latitude, it means an area of the escape section:

(1500-300) * 7000= 1200 * 7000 = 9,400,000 (km*km)

This is would be a certain and large channel. If flux of escaping hydrogen todays is about 10 tons per second (about 300 Tg(h)/yr, corresponding to 3 cubic km water ) with a velocity of 10,000 m/s, the density of escaping hydrogen can be reckoned as follows:

10,000,000g/100,000,000 cubic km, =0.1g/cubic km.

the beam of escaping hydrogen is like a tippet for the earth, and it should be observed with modern space science, though it is quite subtle.

You wrote:
"When we accept the budget data that was presented in [3], only 20-40 Tg/yr are candidates for the above mentioned flux. Could this amount produce the effect you are predicting, that is a reduction of the original mass of the ocean by a factor of 20? Let‘s do a quick calculation. When we assume that all methane is generated by methane producing bacteria and that life on earth exists for less than 4*109 years, when we further assume that to produce one molecule methane we need one water molecule, then we can conclude that we loose about 4*109 * 40 Tg methane, which would roughly correspondent to 1.6 * 1011 Tg water. The present day ocean on the other hand contains 1.4*1012 Tg water.

When we further consider that your model assumes that the first land masses appeared only in the Cambrium, we have to reduce the estimated methane loss even more, with an ocean to atmosphere flux of 0.4 Tg (see [4] ), we get 3.5*109 *0.4 Tg + 0.5*109*40 Tg, that is 2.14 * 1010 Tg, which amounts to 1.5 % of the mass of the current ocean. "

As I considered, the budget data and some other data should deliberated in future. However, I would like to point out, the rate of the hydrosphere spending is changing in the geological ages, which should be positive corresponding to the active degree of the biosphere. I guess, the rate of the hydrosphere spending in Carboniferous would be 4 – 7 times of that now, and the rate of the hydrosphere spending in Jurassic would be 6 – 9 times of that now, when the oxygen, methane in the atmosphere is also several times more than that now.

Thank you for your referances.

Some further details will be discussed in future.

Benlin Liu

This message has been edited by benllinliu, 11-08-2005 05:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by bernd, posted 11-06-2005 9:57 AM bernd has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022