Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

Hello Chris,I hope you don‘t mind when I join the discussion. I‘m not an expert in the area of CPT, therefore feel free to correct any misconceptions, but I have the same doubt as the other participants in this discussions: I think CPT has a heat problem. Let me explain.When I understand Baumgardner correctly, he assumes that the whole ocean floor we see today has been build during the flood. This would mean, that the oceanic lithosphere with a mass of 5*10^22 kg ( under the assumption that the area of the oceans measures 3,61*10^8 km^2, the average thickness of the oceanic lithosphere is 50 km and the density of magma 2800 kg/m^3 ) has been cooled to its current temperature within one year. A short calculation shows that we are talking about at least 2*10^25 kJ, which is needed for the phase change of magma from fluid to solid - assuming that the latent heat of fusion for magma is 400 kJ/Kg. If we add the cooling by about 600 K to get the current temperature profile of oceanic lithosphere, we end up with another 3*10^25 kJ. If we compare this with the heat needed to turn all sea water into steam, about 3,8*10^24 kJ, we notice a problem for CPT.A second problem arises when we observe the growing thickness and density of the oceanic lithosphere starting from the ridge to the subduction zone. Turcotte and Schubert explain this in their chapter 4-16 of "Geodynamics" with cooling by heat conduction as described by the model of a semi-infinite half-space. Conductive cooling of rock takes time, in the case of lithosphere with a thickness of 116 km about 80 million years.How would CPT explain this?-BerndReferencesTurcotte, Schubert (2002)
Geodynamics
Cambridge University Press

Hello Chris,Thank you for your detailed answer, I’m glad to learn that we have found some common ground. But - in these discussions there seems to be always a but - I do not agree with your suggestion, that CPT has a possible, even a plausible solution to offer with respect to one of its heat problems. I am going to raise two objections.My first point concerns the proposed rapid cooling by convection near the ridge. I would expect from Baumgardners explication, that after a steep decline near the ridge we observe a nearly constant temperature profile from this point to the subduction zone. But that’s not what we see. Have a look at this link http://planet.gcn.ou.edu/...tes/heat_flow_data/lith_cool.htm The actual density and depth curve is far better matched by conductive cooling via the half space model , even in its rather primitive form which I cited in my last posting.My second objection deals with the 10^8 Joule which Baumgardner assigns to a kg of steam in his scenario. I think the maximum amount of energy a kg of steam can contain, is limited by the temperature of the magma. According to your remark in your last posting, I assume a temperature of 1500 C. When we calculate the energy needed for heating a kg of water from 0 to this temperature, we obtain:1) 420 kJ to heat a kg of water from 0 to 100C
2) 2260 kJ to turn a kg of water into steam
3) 2578 kJ to heat a kg of steam from 100 to 1500CThat is 7259 kJ in total to heat a kg of water from 0 to 1500C. When we divide your estimation for the heat production ( 3*10^25 kJ) by this value, we obtain the amount of water needed to cool the lithosphere: 4,1*10^21 kg. That’s about three times the mass of the actual ocean: 1,4 * 10 ^24 kg.-BerndP.S.
Thank you for your recommendation of "Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets", Schubert, Turcotte, Olson, 2001. I‘ll give it a try.This message has been edited by bernd, 12-Jul-2005 08:00 PM

Hi Chris,First I would like to correct the calculation I did in message 150, I simply messed it up last night. Sorry for that! Ok, second try.My objection deals with the 10^8 Joule which Baumgardner assigns to a kg of steam in his scenario. I think the maximum amount of energy a kg of steam can contain is limited by the temperature of the magma. According to your remark in your last posting, I assume a temperature of 1500 C. When we calculate the energy needed for heating a kg of water from 0 to this temperature, we obtain1) 420 kJ to heat one kg of water from 0 to 100C
2) 2260 kJ to turn one kg of water into steam
3) 2578 kJ to heat one kg of steam from 100 to 1500C (assuming constant pressure)That is 5258 kJ in total - and not 7259 kJ, as I wrote in message 150 - to heat one kg of water from 0 to 1500C. When we divide your estimation for the heat production ( 3*10^25 kJ) by this value, we obtain the amount of water needed to cool the lithosphere: 5,7*10^21 kg. That’s more than four times the mass of the actual ocean: 1,4 * 10 ^24 kg. In other words, there is not enough water in the ocean to cool the oceanic lithosphere to its current temperature.Another geological feature I expect to be kind of a problem for CPT are island chains created by a hot spot, for example the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain, a line of seamounts over a distance of more than 6000 km. As you can see in this link GEOL205: Island Chain there is a nice correlation between distance measured from Hawaii, the radiometric age of the seamounts and the current rate of plate movement. Under the assumptions of CPT we have a hotspot which wanders more than 16 km a day and manages to create guyots (Seamounts whose peaks have eroded and become a flat surface)-Bernd

Hello Phillip,I think Kent Ham got it right, when he stated that according to CPT the whole ocean floor would be dramatically hotter.
When we assume that TrueCreations estimate of the total heat production of oceanic litosphere (see [1]) is more or less correct (my estimate was even higher) then we are talking about 3 * 10^28 Joule. That’s more than enough to turn all sea water into steam, a process that would kill all higher life forms on earth.
(Considering Baumgardners idea of superheated steam jets near ridge the to cool the ocean floor rapidly, please compare my arguments in [2])Compared to this problem, my second objection is a minor one. I do not understand , how runaway subduction could possibly work, when the ocean floor is dramatically hotter not just at spreading ridges, but everywhere.The reason for subduction is - at least in main stream geology - the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere as it moves away from the ridge. The colder subcrustal rocks in the lithospere become sufficiently dense to make old lithosphere heavy enough to be gravitationally unstable with respect to the hot mantel rocks immediately underlying the lithosphere. As a result of this gravitational instability the lithosphere founders and begins to sink into the interior of the Earth at ocean trenches [1]-BerndReferences[1] Message 127[2] Message 155[3] Turcote, Schubert (2002)
Geodynamics
Cambridge University Press, 9 p.

Hello Phillip,Some remarks to your last message.1) It’s not possible to defend a scientific theory by invoking a miracle. In doing so, you are suggesting that CPT is a piece of theological reasoning disguised as a text about plate tectonics. This would undermine the main point of CPT: to lend creditability to the idea of a young earth by bringing up a explanation for the flood which is not in conflict with known physical laws.2) Even when we assume that the flood covered the highest mountains, specially Mount Everest, the water wouldn’t suffice to cool the lithosphere to its current temperature. As I wrote in [1] we need at least 5,7*10^21 kg of water for the cooling, that is 4.2 times the mass of the actual oceans. The average depth of the current ocean is about 4000 m, the depth of the hypothetical flood ocean would be 16800 m.3) Please note, that I only considered the heat which is released the production of the ocean floor, you have to add the heat caused by accelerated radioactive decay, which taken alone would be sufficient to melt the whole earth. (have a look at Joe Meert‘s message [2])4) The Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain argument I tried to make, states that even when we accept accelerated radioactive decay as reason for the measured ages of the volcanoes, CPT would have to explain, how seamounts can be build within a very short time frame (under CPT assumptions plates move at a velocity of more than 16 km a day). Please have a look at this link, which describes the evolution of the hawaiian seamounts. [3].-BerndReferences[1] Message 155
[2] Message 244
[3] Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes - Wikipedia

Hello Phillip,Against the advice of Percy I would like to discuss in some detail the objections you raised. I think that’s a good opportunity to prove him wrong and to show that you can do better than simply cut and paste material you are incapable of intelligently assessing. [1]Let’s start with the first link, which as you stated correctly in [2]: The article [3] first covers evidences and theoretical bases for nuclear decay. The next chapter is named Dealing with the Heat and begins with a concession: That‘s correct. The heat would melt the earth.
The solution of the mentioned problems has been found by the author in the following psalm: which he interprets as: So far to the scientific treatment of the excess heat problem. Now to my questions.

What does the author exactly mean by rapid stretching of space? Inflation?

​

If yes, what do you think were the parameters of the universe, when inflation started?

​

Assumed there would be an earth at the beginning of inflation, what would happen with it, provided that after inflation the universe is stretched by a factor of more than 10^30? ([4], p. 17)

​

If there are no effects by stretching, how does cooling work?

​

Regards
Bernd

​

References

​

[1] Message 260
[2] Message 256
[3] http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accelerate...
[4] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124.pdf