Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salt in Oceans
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 116 (590406)
11-08-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
11-08-2010 1:02 AM


And slevesque doesn't need to know where the salt water came from. He needs to know that it was deposited by evaporation.
Actually, what he needs to know is that we evolutionists are completely right about everything. Then he could admit that creationists are completely wrong about everything, and then he could move on.
However, if, rather than taking my word for everything (which obviously he should) he chooses to look into it in slightly more detail, then it is only fair to him to say that saline giants and playas are in fact formed by completely different processes. 'Cos they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 11-08-2010 1:02 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 11-08-2010 10:07 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 116 (593300)
11-25-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Jason777
11-25-2010 7:45 PM


Re: I call bullshit
They ignore it because it is irrelevant. Where does the salt come from to start with? From the rocks themselves. So, the rate of evaporation would match the rate that more salt is being redeposited back into the oceans. They shouldn't be expected to make the obvious a point should they?
Your point, so far from being "obvious", seems both cryptic and unsupported.
Clearly these marine evaporites constitute an output of salt because there they sit no longer contributing to the salinity of seawater. Because of not being dissolved in it.
Now that is obvious.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Jason777, posted 11-25-2010 7:45 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 108 of 116 (593348)
11-26-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
11-26-2010 10:05 AM


Re: I call bullshit
You say the rates of addition and removal of salt match, right?
If they match, then the amount of salt in the oceans does not change over time, right?
Therefore the amount of salt in the oceans cannot be a measure of the age of the oceans, right?
I did wonder about this, but put it down to incoherence of expression rather than of the underlying thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 11-26-2010 10:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 116 (593366)
11-26-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Jason777
11-26-2010 1:29 PM


Re: I call bullshit
No. I'm stating the fact that when inland seas evaporate, the water condensates into rain which only increases the rate of sodium being redeposited back into the oceans. The average rate is ~457 tons annually, if evaporation from inland seas increases the precipitation rate, then it would also increase the redeposition rate. Meaning, the oceans will still increase at an average rate regardless.
Leaving aside the bit where you attempt to produce a quantitative argument without actually calculating any of the relevant quantities, could I draw your attention to the fact that the marine evaporites don't correspond to a higher rate of evaporation but a lower rate of mixing?
The same amount of water would evaporate from the same amount of ocean whether it was or wasn't almost cut off from the main body of the ocean. But the precipitation of halite occurs only if it is.
Diatoms and other marine macrofossils don't just evaporate with the water; they should leave marine signatures verifying them as ancient oceans.
Unless, of course, and you may treat this as the purest conjecture, marine organisms can't tolerate high levels of salinity. I guess that would make the seas in question dead seas. Hmm ... that phrase rings a bell somehow ... and I'm sure it has something to do with salt ...
Perhaps you could jog my memory.
Many salt deposits are simply that and have never been dissolved into the ocean to start with.
Perhaps you could provide a hypothesis as to how they did get there ... or is your claim just based on wishful thinking?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Jason777, posted 11-26-2010 1:29 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 116 (593921)
11-30-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
11-30-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Clarification
What I think Jason was attempting to say is that once salt beds are on land that they will eventually wash back into the sea, and he is correct.
Not necessarily. They could just stay buried (Remember that there are still pre-Cambrian halite deposits knocking about). Or they could get subducted (a closing ocean basin is a good place for the formation of a saline giant and also a good place for subduction to occur).
But I read Jason as saying that when evaporites are formed the amount of evaporation from the oceans increases, which increases the amount of rain on land, which increases the input of salt into the oceans, which somehow always manages to compensate exactly for the output through evaporite formation. Which is wrong for reasons that I've indicated.
Perhaps if and when he comes back he could clarify this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 11-30-2010 11:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024