Heat release from tectonic friction

Hi TC, Isn't water the the cooling agent that cools the plates as they move?So my point is that the water would have got in the materials between the stationary materals and the moving materials during the movement, and into the mantel during any subduction.God Bless,

Oh, I get it.
Its like spagetti moving in a boiling pot as the salty water bubbles, right?The bubbling energy is there all the time.
The qustion the OP asks then seems to guess what the temoerature would be to mive the spagetti faster than say 600 million years, and form Pangea in 4000 years.If the YECS wold entertain Pangea as a theory, the whole point of the question woulkd be moot.
But, supposing that they did accept a 600 million year duration, compacted into 4000 years, your calcuklations would expect the thermal energy of the moment to raise the present temperature.Is that what we are saying here?

Since this topic bears on the claims of Young Earth Creationists, I would very much appreciate it if the participants would put their thoughts into simple English and avoid the technical language so I can follow the discussion. Thank you.

They are using the simplest possible English already. The problem is that you need to learn the technical details to understand what is being said.

It wouldn't be an effective cooling agent unless there was someplace to transfer the heat out of the water. Imagine your cars cooling system without a radiator.

quote:

---

Isn't water the the cooling agent that cools the plates as they move?

​

So my point is that the water would have got in the materials between the stationary materals and the moving materials during the movement, and into the mantel during any subduction.

​

God Bless,

---

Water is able to cool things by moving through it. Chemically bound water in the mantle won't accomplish any of that. On the other hand you could suppose that hydrothermal circulation in oceanic lithosphere removes heat and cools the lithosphere. In fact, we already know this happens in oceanic crust and to some extent in the mantle, but it is not more widespread than we would expect from present-day rates. Most heat is transported by hydrothermal circulation very close to spreading ridges where the lithosphere is mostly oceanic crust and is thin, but after a few million years of cooling thermal gradients at the surface are not enough to drive circulation and pore spaces are sealed by alteration processes like serpentinization. The lithosphere would be chemically and thermally nothing like what we see if cooling by seawater transported 10^29 J of energy, and none of this solves the heat problem anyway.Nevertheless, you are right that water in the lithosphere will be dragged into the mantle during subduction, which is well understood. This is why volcanism occurs in subduction zone arcs (think of the 'ring of fire'). On the other hand, note that this water taken to the mantle is chemically bound in serpentinites and such. Free pore water is mostly squeezed out of the plate long before it reaches significant depth.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh, I get it.
Its like spagetti moving in a boiling pot as the salty water bubbles, right?

​

The bubbling energy is there all the time.
The qustion the OP asks then seems to guess what the temoerature would be to mive the spagetti faster than say 600 million years, and form Pangea in 4000 years.

​

If the YECS wold entertain Pangea as a theory, the whole point of the question woulkd be moot.
But, supposing that they did accept a 600 million year duration, compacted into 4000 years, your calcuklations would expect the thermal energy of the moment to raise the present temperature.

​

Is that what we are saying here?

---

I think so. In the "spaghetti pot" of the Earth, the kinetic energy of motion is small compared to the huge amounts of heat removed by conduction at the surface of the boiling water/convecting mantle.The general point is that an understanding of geology and geophysics tells us that if the YEC hypothesis is true, the only way to make it work is to take the long history of the Earth and compact is into the younger timescale. The specific point I make in this thread, as you seem to correctly ascertain, is that if you do this one of the major problems is with heat. It is like witnessing a car crash--was the car going 100 kilometers per hour when it hit the brick wall, or was it going 30,000 kilometers per second? The latter causes a big heat problem, but we could also study the wreckage and find that no such speed was ever reached. Maybe the car was going 80 kph or 120 kph, but it certainly wasn't going a good fraction of the speed of light.

Hi No, Any water at the bottom of the ocean that was introduced into the oceanic crust would be able to account for a lot of cooling as it is 1.5C to 4.5 C.But water at 210 can still transfer heat as it becomes steam, as well as superheated steam. And yes the water in the lithosphere and asthenosphere would need vents to expell heat such as those in the ocean and through volcanos, as well as the cooler mass above the water.God Bless,

Yeah, I see the point,...
The problem seems to be informingthe YECs that Pangea happened 600 million years ago, though, so we can do the math.I don't know if they will deny Pangea, but how could they accept it if the earth is only 6000 years old??Or, maybe they do accept Pangea but think it happened around 6000 years ago?
If so, your case has merit in informing them it just could not be.But there is NO hope this will change minds, since the atheists on the other side ar just as bad when they hear that Pangea supports Gen 1:9.Nobody wants the truth if it doesn't conform with their opinion.

Hi TC, In a laundry sheets and towels and cloths are washed and then as much water as possible is extracted from the material. But the material still contains water.Steam produced in a boiler is used to heat ironers, and presses as well as tunnels that are used to remove the water from the cloth material.The water first is heated to be come steam and then the steam heats the metal that the cloth material is put in contact with and that metal then transfers heat to the cloth material whch becomes dry,as the water in the material trys to cool the metal. How did that water get captured in the lherzolite and retained in nominally anhydrous minerals?Where did that water come from?God Bless,

quote:

---

Any water at the bottom of the ocean that was introduced into the oceanic crust would be able to account for a lot of cooling as it is 1.5C to 4.5 C.

​

But water at 210 can still transfer heat as it becomes steam, as well as superheated steam. And yes the water in the lithosphere and asthenosphere would need vents to expell heat such as those in the ocean and through volcanos, as well as the cooler mass above the water.

---

The temperature needs to be much higher than 200C for steam to form at depth in oceanic crust, let alone the mantle. In any case it doesn't matter much. Hydrothermal circulation in oceanic crust is a topic of much interest in geodynamic modeling. The kind of Nusselt numbers (convective/conductive heat transport ratio) for hydrothermal transport in the youngest oceanic crust are on the order of 10-100. You need to assume nonsense thermodynamics to significantly increase this number.

quote:

---

And yes the water in the lithosphere and asthenosphere would need vents to expell heat such as those in the ocean and through volcanos, as well as the cooler mass above the water.

---

I don't see how they "need" vents to expel heat except as an ad hoc mechanism (which doesn't work and is not compatible with geochemistry and petrology) to transport an enormous amount of heat from the lithosphere into the oceans, which then needs to be magically removed anyway. Also, I hope you aren't confused: the water in the rock of the lithosphere and asthenosphere is very small and will not contribute to cooling.

quote:

---

How did that water get captured in the lherzolite and retained in nominally anhydrous minerals?

​

Where did that water come from?

---

Initial accretion of Earth and subduction over 3 or 4 billion years of Earth history.I don't know what you are trying to say in the other part of your message.

quote:

---

Yeah, I see the point,...
The problem seems to be informingthe YECs that Pangea happened 600 million years ago, though, so we can do the math.

​

I don't know if they will deny Pangea, but how could they accept it if the earth is only 6000 years old??

​

Or, maybe they do accept Pangea but think it happened around 6000 years ago?
If so, your case has merit in informing them it just could not be.

​

But there is NO hope this will change minds, since the atheists on the other side ar just as bad when they hear that Pangea supports Gen 1:9.

​

Nobody wants the truth if it doesn't conform with their opinion.

---

Well, convincing someone of a certain truth is not my concern if they do not value scientific method. I might go so far as to say that if one does not value scientific epistemology, they deserve to believe lies.

Pangaea existed for a wide expanse of time. It started coming together in the carboniferous and was complete about 250 million years ago and started to break apart in the jurassic. I would say that it ceased to exist when there was a body of water completely seperating north and south america from europe and africa, although fragments of it persisted like antarctica being connected to australia for some time.

It would seem better to calculate the time fromthe break up of Rodinia, the first formation that defined a pantahalassic ocean surrounding just one continent, until the break up of Rodinia and the formation of Pangea.
The would be be one whole cycle. This very first formation took place during the "Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-" "and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era," = i.e.; the Third "Day"...