How come the ocean hasn't been absorbed into the ground?

[Flatland]

I've tried researching this question and I couldn't find a satisfying answer. How come the water on Earth hasn't been absorbed by the ground over billions of years? The Earth's water evaporate but get's replenished when it comes back down as precipitation. Is there a similar process that occurs underground? Is it buoyancy issue? If the water does slowly get absorbed does it come back up somehow?

 

[Tea Jay]

I've tried researching this question and I couldn't find a satisfying answer. How come the water on Earth hasn't been absorbed by the ground over billions of years? The Earth's water evaporate but get's replenished when it comes back down as precipitation. Is there a similar process that occurs underground? Is it buoyancy issue? If the water does slowly get absorbed does it come back up somehow?

Many reasons, but a big one would relate to permeability. There are layers of clay, rock, etc, which prevent the water from going down beyond a certain depth in certain locations.

Water which does percolate down tends to flow along underground rivers and things like that, and back to visible bodies of water.

 

[Flatland]

Don't cracks and fissures form regularly that would allow water to seep down to deeper levels? From what I understand there can be lots of moisture even deep underground so evidently water can get there somehow.

 

[Studiot]

How come the water on Earth hasn't been absorbed by the ground over billions of years?

Perhaps there is too much of it?

Any given body of ground can only hold just so much water before it becomes saturated. The 'water table' (or phreatic surface if you want the posh term) is an underground surface below which the rocks are saturated.

 

[D H]

How come the water on Earth hasn't been absorbed by the ground over billions of years?

In a sense it is. Wet sediments are deposited on the ocean floor and water does seep into the oceanic crust. However, this oceanic crust is fairly short lived, 200 million years or less. The oceanic crust arises at mid-ocean ridges and subsides back into the Earth at subduction zones. Those wet sea-floor sediments and saturated oceanic crust lose their water as the material subsides into the Earth. That migrating water comes back to the surface in the form of steam. The volcanoes near those subduction zones can sometimes be quite explosive because of the large amounts of steam they produce.Edit
See Ranero et al., Bending-related faulting and mantle serpentinization at the Middle America trench, Nature 425, 367-373 (25 September 2003)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01961

 

[Amiri Daudi]

Remember the water body is larger than the land itself if this could happened the whole world will be in a sticky mess of water

 

[D H]

Remember the water body is larger than the land itself if this could happened the whole world will be in a sticky mess of water

The other way around. The original post by Flatland essentially asked why the Earth has oceans at all: Why isn't the Earth all dry land? After all, rainfall does soak into the ground and even into the bedrock to form aquifers. So what stops all of the surface water from soaking into the ground? Why do we have oceans?

The answer is that this does happen. The ocean's waters do indeed seep into the mud and crustal material that underlies the ocean. What the OP missed is that the ocean crust is young and is constantly being recycled. Volcanos at the subduction zones spew out immense amounts of water expelled from saturated ocean crust as it dives into the Earth due to subduction. The Earth is more or less in a steady state between water lost due to seepage and water added due to volcanos. It is plate tectonics that maintains this steady state.

 

[GeoHamster]

Almost all crustal rocks have some amount of porosity (i.e. the volume fraction of the entire rock that is not composed of solid minerals, like holes in swiss cheese) either through the natural packing configuration of grains or fractures on crystalline rock. All the porosity in these rocks is completely filled with water (except for the rare occurrences of hydrocarbons, CO2, etc), from the surface to large depths where the water is absorbed by the surrounding minerals through chemical reactions forming new hydrous minerals precipitated in the place of the porosity. So there is a depth at which no more porosity exists and water cannot keep going down.

Then, as others explained, through crustal recycling, the hydrous minerals are exposed to incredibly high temperatures when they make contact with the mantle. This generates a melt that includes water in the form of bubbles. In fact, the presence of water drops the melting point of the entire rock allowing this to happen at relatively shallow depths. Then that melt makes its way up through more crustal rock, taking in all the water in its path, and releasing everything at the surface in the form of a volcano. Also, water surrounding the path of the melt may also be heated and its pressure raised such that it ejects at the surface through fractures in what we call geysers.

 

[chemisttree]

I've tried researching this question and I couldn't find a satisfying answer. How come the water on Earth hasn't been absorbed by the ground over billions of years? The Earth's water evaporate but get's replenished when it comes back down as precipitation. Is there a similar process that occurs underground? Is it buoyancy issue? If the water does slowly get absorbed does it come back up somehow?

It does penetrate the crust. It's penetration defines the Mohorovicic discontinuity.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Surely the main reason why most of the water stays on the surface is that it is a lot less dense than most other materials. Any large voids underground may get water in them but they will eventually fill up with small rocks / sand /mud which will displace the water upwards.
The natural place for water is on or near the surface because it just floats up there.

 

[billiards]

Water which does percolate down tends to flow along underground rivers and things like that, and back to visible bodies of water.

A common misconception. "Underground rivers" are rare and only occur in karstic systems, basically limestones and chalk. Groundwater typically flows through pore space and the occasional fracture in the rock.

That migrating water comes back to the surface in the form of steam. The volcanoes near those subduction zones can sometimes be quite explosive because of the large amounts of steam they produce.

I think the important point with water in subduction zones is that water greatly reduces the melting temperature of rock. Therefore wherever and whenever there is water in the system there is much more likely to be melt. Melt (full of hydrous volatiles) travels upward s back to the surface, and indeed water is released by volcanoes. Although careful, the majority of steam (water) is likely inherited from ground around the volcano, not necessarily the rising magma. Incidentally there is believed to be a vast amount of water in the Earth's mantle.

It does penetrate the crust. It's penetration defines the Mohorovicic discontinuity.

Umm. what? I don't think so.

 

[Ophiolite]

It does penetrate the crust. It's penetration defines the Mohorovicic discontinuity.

I second billiard's surprise at this comment. Please provide appropriate citations to justify this seemingly bizarre claim.

The Moho, taken as the boundary between crust and mantle, is defined by a large change in seismic velocity. This is traditioanlly ascribed, broadly, to a change from mafic to ultramafic rocks with corresponding mineralogical differences. I am unaware of any research that attributes these fundamental differences to water content. I would be fascinated to learn that such was the case and to understand how this functions as the primary mechanism defining the discontinuity.

 

[chemisttree]

I second billiard's surprise at this comment. Please provide appropriate citations to justify this seemingly bizarre claim.

The Moho, taken as the boundary between crust and mantle, is defined by a large change in seismic velocity. This is traditioanlly ascribed, broadly, to a change from mafic to ultramafic rocks with corresponding mineralogical differences. I am unaware of any research that attributes these fundamental differences to water content. I would be fascinated to learn that such was the case and to understand how this functions as the primary mechanism defining the discontinuity.

Be fascinated.

 

[sophiecentaur]

As no one seems to have taken up my simple argument based on density, would someone 'who knows' tell me what sort of proportion of the Earth's water content is actually contained in the Oceans, compared with the amount that's underground? The actual (estimated) quantities involved would be nice to know if we want a good picture of what's actually going on. I realize that the total volume of the Oceans is really small, compared with the whole volume of the Crust.

 

[billiards]

Be fascinated.

I assume you are referring specifically to the line in reference to the Moho.

'...but it may be an alteration front corresponding locally to the depth of circulation of seawater down fractures and faults into the Earth's interior.'

This MAY be true, but note it is talking about LOCAL phenomena within a MODEL of ocean crust. This in no way is equivalent to the inference that water cannot penetrate into the mantle anywhere at all.

Indeed on the very same page as you linked to we find in relation to the development of textures in serpentinized peridotites a sentence which states:

'Progressive serpentinization and hydrothermal alteration from greenschist to zeolite facies were spatially and temporally related to the development of multiple generations of macroscopic veins and were associate with the penetration of seawater-dominated fluids into the upper mantle rocks.'

It seems that water can and does penetrate into the mantle, and believe me, there is a lot of work on the Earth's deep water cycle to back that statement up.

 

[chemisttree]

I assume you are referring specifically to the line in reference to the Moho.

'...but it may be an alteration front corresponding locally to the depth of circulation of seawater down fractures and faults into the Earth's interior.'

This MAY be true, but note it is talking about LOCAL phenomena within a MODEL of ocean crust. This in no way is equivalent to the inference that water cannot penetrate into the mantle anywhere at all.

Right. I don't believe I inferred that at all.

Indeed on the very same page as you linked to we find in relation to the development of textures in serpentinized peridotites a sentence which states:

'Progressive serpentinization and hydrothermal alteration from greenschist to zeolite facies were spatially and temporally related to the development of multiple generations of macroscopic veins and were associate with the penetration of seawater-dominated fluids into the upper mantle rocks.'

It seems that water can and does penetrate into the mantle, and believe me, there is a lot of work on the Earth's deep water cycle to back that statement up.

Of course on the same page it states that where extensive faulting occurs that serpentinization continues into the upper mantle and that the boundary of serpentine and unaltered rock defines the MOHO... within the upper reaches of the mantle!

 

[sophiecentaur]

Forgive me but is this concentration on the qualitative rather than the quantitative typical of Geological discussion? I should have thought the the quantities involved would be much more important to you guys than this discussion would sugest. I, personally, would welcome some enlightenment as to how much actual data exists about the quantity of water you are discussing.
Are the Oceans the equivalent to the condensation on the ceiling of a swimming baths or the contents of the pool itself?

 

[billiards]

So you're not saying that the Moho (crust mantle boundary) is the boundary to which water can penetrate? And hence the inference that water cannot penetrate into the mantle?

Right. I don't believe I inferred that at all.

OK, that was my reading of your statement below...

It does penetrate the crust. It's penetration defines the Mohorovicic discontinuity.

In which case I have absolutely no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Will you guys stop squabbling please and try to answer the OP?
An answer could be of the form "There is very little water underground" or "There is much more water underground than in all of the Oceans" - or something in between.
That information would be useful to Flatland, I'm sure, and to me also.

 

[billiards]

Forgive me but is this concentration on the qualitative rather than the quantitative typical of Geological discussion? I should have thought the the quantities involved would be much more important to you guys than this discussion would sugest. I, personally, would welcome some enlightenment as to how much actual data exists about the quantity of water you are discussing.
Are the Oceans the equivalent to the condensation on the ceiling of a swimming baths or the contents of the pool itself?

No it's not typical, people speculate quantitatively, however the 2 sigma uncertainty is likely to be huge and I don't happen to know the numbers off head. The data about water content has to be inferred from geophysical measurements, of things like the electrical conductivity of the mantle, and the seismic properties. It's hard enough to make good geophysical measurements in the first place, because there is always a lot going on in the signal and the Earth is not a conducive beast. For example if you want the signal from the upper mantle you need to remove the crust signal because your instruments are always on (or above) the crust and so any signal from the mantle necessarily has to pass through the crust. Then these measurements are very indirect and need to be put in context using mineralogical data. It's very hard to convert knowledge of seismic wavespeed and electric conductivity into a number for water content. Partly because there are other things that can have a similar effect to water on your data, and partly because most of those things have not even been worked out in terms of the mineral physics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

No it's not typical, people speculate quantitatively, however the 2 sigma uncertainty is likely to be huge and I don't happen to know the numbers off head. The data about water content has to be inferred from geophysical measurements, of things like the electrical conductivity of the mantle, and the seismic properties. It's hard enough to make good geophysical measurements in the first place, because there is always a lot going on in the signal and the Earth is not a conducive beast. For example if you want the signal from the upper mantle you need to remove the crust signal because your instruments are always on (or above) the crust and so any signal from the mantle necessarily has to pass through the crust. Then these measurements are very indirect and need to be put in context using mineralogical data. It's very hard to convert knowledge of seismic wavespeed and electric conductivity into a number for water content. Partly because there are other things that can have a similar effect to water on your data, and partly because most of those things have not even been worked out in terms of the mineral physics.

Thanks for the reply. I totally sympathise about the lack of data. But you are basically saying that the answer to the original question is that we don't know?? That is a totally acceptable answer, btw.

 

[billiards]

How come the ocean hasn't been absorbed into the ground?

1) If you are talking about why the ocean doesn't disappear down cracks in the ground it's because those crack are already full of water and the Earth is not an infinite sink.

2) If you are asking more generally why do we have free water on the Earth's surface. I would say with the caveat that this is not my area of expertise so could be wrong, but here goes: Water does not fit into rock forming minerals at high pressures and temperatures, and under intense P-T conditions will cause the rock to melt. If the melt is buoyant (which I guess it normally is -- otherwise we wouldn't have water at the surface -- (incidentally that's not an obvious thing at all as some melts in the Earth are not buoyant and sink)) then the water will be carried up to the surface. This process forms a cycle which sustains water at the surface.

How much water is there in the Earth?

This is a different question from the OP, but is interesting. I will have to do some reading to try to find out, note that there are many ideas about this so the answer will depend on who you ask.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am pretty impressed by what's been found out about the Earth's structure, bearing in mind that we literally only scratch the surface. There is seismic info too, and magnetic. Amazing how recently Plate Tektonics was 'invented'.
From your answer, it seems that I wad basically right about the density factor, though.

 

[OmCheeto]

...

I think the important point with water in subduction zones is that water greatly reduces the melting temperature of rock.
...

I am still of the opinion that posts on, or about, April 1st, should still subscribe to PF standards of excellence.

---------------------------------
because I am so stupid, I will invariably be sucked in...
and where has that rabble rouser Flatland been since December...

 

[OmCheeto]

I think the important point with water in subduction zones is that water greatly reduces the melting temperature of rock.

I am still of the opinion that posts on, or about, April 1st, should still subscribe to PF standards of excellence.

billiards, you missed a very important financial opportunity there. I would have wagered major bucks you were joking.

Om stands there over the stove trying to cook rocks in the fry pan.
billiards walks by.
Om; "Hey billiards, my rocks won't melt. What do I do"?
billiards; "Just add water".
Om; "Ah! Hahahahahaha!"

Just before leaving for work this morning I checked on this most ludicrous of ideas, thinking maybe that I had misinterpreted something, and discovered it is not a joke.

How to Melt a Rock
...
As the cold slab sinks, water is forced out and percolates upward into the overlaying hot, dry mantle rock. This sudden addition of water lowers the melting point of that mantle rock, and it begins to melt....

 

[sophiecentaur]

I wonder about this talk about water altering the melting point of rocks. Presumably we are talking in terms of extremes of pressure and temperature so perhaps the gut reaction may not be a reliable one. Mixtures often have lower melting temperatures than the individual constituents and the 'water' in question is not the wet stuff we take a bath in but could be like the mercury (liquid) that dissolves (amalgam) gold (melts at 1000C plus) at room temperature.
Is the water / rock thing SUCH a loopy idea?

 

[billiards]

If you want to know more about water in the deep earth, then this here review paper is a pretty good starting point:

Hirschmann. Water, melting, and the deep Earth H2O cycle. Annu Rev Earth Pl Sc (2006) vol. 34 pp. 629-653

(freely available here: http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/Hirschmann.pdf)

With regards to the quantity of water stored in the deep earth:

The total H2O stored in Earth’s mantle is poorly constrained, with estimates from about a quarter the mass of H2O in the world’s oceans to ∼4 ocean masses (Ringwood 1975, Ahrens 1989, Jambon & Zimmermann 1990, Bolfan-Casanova et al. 2003).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Thank you for that link. Loads of it but very interesting and it shows just how much more complicated the system is than one might think.

 

[OmCheeto]

If you want to know more about water in the deep earth, then this here review paper is a pretty good starting point:

Hirschmann. Water, melting, and the deep Earth H2O cycle. Annu Rev Earth Pl Sc (2006) vol. 34 pp. 629-653

(freely available here: http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/Hirschmann.pdf)

With regards to the quantity of water stored in the deep earth:

The total H2O stored in Earth’s mantle is poorly constrained, with estimates from about a quarter the mass of H2O in the world’s oceans to ∼4 ocean masses (Ringwood 1975, Ahrens 1989, Jambon & Zimmermann 1990, Bolfan-Casanova et al. 2003).

Wow. Don't have time to read the whole thing, but maybe the thread topic should be changed to: "What if one quarter of the ocean hadn't been absorbed into the ground"?

From my calculations, sea level would be ~800 meters higher!

Fascinating...

 

[sheshank]

I'll speak in very short sentences. The Earth's temperature rises every 300 mts deep by some extent (perhaps one degree or so). This happens when there is something to cover it up. For example, let's consider the case of digging up earth. If you dig up the Earth under one of the highest himalaya mountains to the sea level and compare it with the sea, you'll find the change in temperature. So, when it rains all water find slopes and reach oceans. Water accumulate together. They can't penetrate more deeper because, if they penetrate they'll face heavy temperature and have to come up again in the form of vapors through the tiny perforations of the crust. So, all the water stay where they are.

Sometimes water also goes deeper, like few said in this forum and it happens to support some chemical reactions like Formation of Natural gas and Fossil fuels etc. But, not all water can be sucked inside the Earth. I guess I cleared the initial doubt asked

Guess I am right with my explanation. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'll speak in very short sentences. The Earth's temperature rises every 300 mts deep by some extent (perhaps one degree or so). This happens when there is something to cover it up. For example, let's consider the case of digging up earth. If you dig up the Earth under one of the highest himalaya mountains to the sea level and compare it with the sea, you'll find the change in temperature. So, when it rains all water find slopes and reach oceans. Water accumulate together. They can't penetrate more deeper because, if they penetrate they'll face heavy temperature and have to come up again in the form of vapors through the tiny perforations of the crust. So, all the water stay where they are.

Sometimes water also goes deeper, like few said in this forum and it happens to support some chemical reactions like Formation of Natural gas and Fossil fuels etc. But, not all water can be sucked inside the Earth. I guess I cleared the initial doubt asked

Guess I am right with my explanation. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's the obvious first reaction, of course. But mixtures have different melting and boiling points from their individual constituents so it is not unthinkable that water could exist (as water) despite the high temperatures at great depth.
What you can read on the links on this thread suggest that it isn't as simple as one might think.

 

[sheshank]

That's the obvious first reaction, of course. But mixtures have different melting and boiling points from their individual constituents so it is not unthinkable that water could exist (as water) despite the high temperatures at great depth.
What you can read on the links on this thread suggest that it isn't as simple as one might think.

Chemically reacted mixtures have entirely different boiling and melting points. That's sure. Other kinds of colloids formed due to water's mixture with something else can never have temperatures greater than a some or little above its boiling point. Like, salt water vaporizes slower than pure water. So, colloids or mixtures can't enhance or influence the temperature to a very great extent. Yes, they enhance and influence, but very little. If, its solutions that form a mixture, then they both must come to Earth's surface due to immense pressure. It just can't be! My common sense say this. I don't know what science speaks of this and to add, I am not a geologist. Its just an obvious thing in physics.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Chemically reacted mixtures have entirely different boiling and melting points. That's sure. Other kinds of colloids formed due to water's mixture with something else can never have temperatures greater than a some or little above its boiling point. Like, salt water vaporizes slower than pure water. So, colloids or mixtures can't enhance or influence the temperature to a very great extent. Yes, they enhance and influence, but very little. If, its solutions that form a mixture, then they both must come to Earth's surface due to immense pressure. It just can't be! My common sense say this. I don't know what science speaks of this and to add, I am not a geologist. Its just an obvious thing in physics.

You don't need a chemical reaction between glycerol and water or between mercury and copper to change the melting point considerably.
You say that you are speaking as a Physicist (and so am I) but I, certainly, have little knowledge of the behaviour of substances at extreme pressure. Do you?

If you look at the phase diagram of water, it remains solid at very high temperatures when the pressure is high enough. I think we need to look in much more detail if we want to be able to hold a valid opinion about this. Personally, I'm open to any good information that turns up on this thread.

 

[sheshank]

You don't need a chemical reaction between glycerol and water or between mercury and copper to change the melting point considerably.
You say that you are speaking as a Physicist (and so am I) but I, certainly, have little knowledge of the behaviour of substances at extreme pressure. Do you?

If you look at the phase diagram of water, it remains solid at very high temperatures when the pressure is high enough. I think we need to look in much more detail if we want to be able to hold a valid opinion about this. Personally, I'm open to any good information that turns up on this thread.

By the word "Science" I mean to say not just physical or chemical or geological but any. That's why I mentioned that I am not a geologist and my common sense speaks what I mentioned.

I think there doesn't need any knowledge other than those few Gaseous laws of Robert Boyle and Charles. So, I proposed my 'common sense' based on this.

Water can never stay in solid form inside the deep layers of earth. Either it should be in the form of colloids (liquid form) or gaseous form. I don't have a confirmation whether the water is in gaseous form under the Earth. (If so, then there should be sesmic vibrations experienced all around the Earth, not just at the places where techtonic plates collide).

How much ever water tries to form a colloid its polarization (because its a non-polar solvent) can't cross more than 180 degrees. Anything more than 120 degrees of polarization is quite impossible without electric supply. Water needs to form heavy polarization with is fellow colloid in order to sustain such heavy temperatures. In that case water molecule simply breaks down rather than staying there completely polarized.

There are two cases where water may form colloids. 1) solid in Liquid 2) liquid in liquid.
If solid in liquid is the case, then water definitely stays away from the solid it is mixed with, since their densities vary by heavy amount which makes them impossible to mix, unless they react chemically. Its a kind of Adsorption phenomena. Even if they mix, water can't account for greater than 2-3% of the colloid just soaking it wet. Given the area taken into consideration (as radius sinks and so is surface area as we go deep), we find very little water in the deeper layers of the earth.
If liquid in liquid is the case. Liquid can mix with liquid only in case as mentioned above (polarization). If there is some material in the form of liquid at that particular (heavy) temperature and pressure, then it must have heavier energy due to brownian motion. We know, when such high energy molecules collide with water molecules of lower energy, they, obviously, are ejected out. This is the practical case.

I state again, I am not a geologist, nor a chemist, nor a physicist. I stated something out of common sense and my high school chemical sciences. There may be other factors taken into consideration which I am not aware of. If anyone cares to mention them, I'll be glad to know about.

 

[billiards]

I stated something out of common sense and my high school chemical sciences. There may be other factors taken into consideration which I am not aware of. If anyone cares to mention them, I'll be glad to know about.

Whilst intuition can be a useful guide in dreaming up hypotheses, predictions and experiments, intuition is not a strong pillar of truth. Scientific knowledge comes by researchers applying the scientific method.

It is well established fact that water lowers the melting temperature of rock, and this has been verified over and over again in labs all around the world. I suspect that your conceptual model of what is happening is wrong. The water itself gets into the crystals that make up the rock, I suspect you are thinking of the water as being "free", but we are actually talking about the water as getting incorporated into the very rock itself. In this case the water is part of a solid constituent, not liquid or vapour. The effect of the water on this constituent is what we are talking about.

 

[sheshank]

Whilst intuition can be a useful guide in dreaming up hypotheses, predictions and experiments, intuition is not a strong pillar of truth. Scientific knowledge comes by researchers applying the scientific method.

It is well established fact that water lowers the melting temperature of rock, and this has been verified over and over again in labs all around the world. I suspect that your conceptual model of what is happening is wrong. The water itself gets into the crystals that make up the rock, I suspect you are thinking of the water as being "free", but we are actually talking about the water as getting incorporated into the very rock itself. In this case the water is part of a solid constituent, not liquid or vapour. The effect of the water on this constituent is what we are talking about.

Let me tell you my point of logic (Warning ! it may be a false reasoning). A hard rock when is complete solid, can never allow water into it. But, gradually as the temperature increases (pressure is constant here), the rock starts to become soft giving chance for the pores to form. In our case, these pores are filled with water molecules which is the Absorption (Adsorption) phenomena. It obviously reduces the temperature conditions of the rock. But, when the same is subjected to conditions under pressure, the rock pores will compress leading the water to exhaust outside - just like a sponge squeased out of water. How much ever you may squease a sponge, it still remains wet. I expect the same to happen with the rock and Earthly conditions. A squeased sponge's properties obviously changes, but not considerably - compared to the case where the sponge is completely adsorbed with water. But, remembering that sponge particles, the particles of which the sponge is actually made, don't keep water molecules attached with them or react with them.

I am very sorry, My English is so limited and I can't explain better than this. If it doesn't reach you, then I am helpless. I'll try to improve my english.

 

[billiards]

A hard rock when is complete solid, can never allow water into it.

Um, I think you should really challenge your underlying assumptions. If this turns out not to be true, anything you infer from it is likely to be wrong no matter how solid your reasoning.

From your post, again I would reinforce that you are not "seeing" what's happening properly, your conceptual model of the situation is flawed. The water molecules themselves become incorporated into the crystal lattice of the rock. The water does not exist in pores -- the water itself becomes part of the rock! At high pressure rocks don't even have pores. Perhaps you need to review your whole conception of what a rock is?

 

[sheshank]

Um, I think you should really challenge your underlying assumptions. If this turns out not to be true, anything you infer from it is likely to be wrong no matter how solid your reasoning.

From your post, again I would reinforce that you are not "seeing" what's happening properly, your conceptual model of the situation is flawed. The water molecules themselves become incorporated into the crystal lattice of the rock. The water does not exist in pores -- the water itself becomes part of the rock! At high pressure rocks don't even have pores. Perhaps you need to review your whole conception of what a rock is?

I think my conscience is too much effected here, or is it that all of you are misconceived. Or is it my English fault. I don't know, my eyes and knowledge is getting masked.

 

[Borek]

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_hydration, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_of_crystallization, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrate#Inorganic_chemistry

 

[sheshank]

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_hydration, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_of_crystallization, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrate#Inorganic_chemistry

Thanks for the links...

I heard and read about Hydration. As that was not my branch, I didn't care much about it. But, it still makes me wonder, if that could be applied at extreme conditions. I have to accept the fact having looked at the links.
Water of crystallization is something which I have heard just the second time. Somebody in my childhood said, rocks contain water inside themselves. I didn't believe him. I think, I should believe him now.

 

[Flatland]

Mentor note:
This post was asked as a separate thread. Since it's a rehash of original post, and made by the original poster, this new thread is being merged into this existing one.[/color]How come the Earth's oceans didn't get absorbed or slowly leak into the ground over the past 4.5 billion years? Especially when the Earth has tectonic activities and the crust constantly split open and closes...etc.

 

[Borek]

Let's assume water seeps down. What is the temperature deep down? What form does water take there? What would happen next?

 

[russ_watters]

The ground isn't porous once you get a good distance down: there is nowhere for the water to go.

 

[D H]

How come the Earth's oceans didn't get absorbed or slowly leak into the ground over the past 4.5 billion years? Especially when the Earth has tectonic activities and the crust constantly split open and closes...etc.

Short answer: It does. It also comes out of the ground.

Oceanic crust is constantly being created and destroyed. New oceanic crust is created at the mid-oceanic ridges is pretty much void of water. Water seeps into that oceanic crust as it ages and is pulled toward subduction zones. A hundred or so million years later, that now saturated oceanic crust is subducted into the Earth. Most of the water comes right back out in the form of volcanic steam.

After 4.6 billion years, the amount of water in the oceans versus in the rock has reached an equilibrium (better: steady-state) value. About the same amount seeps in as comes out.

 

[OmCheeto]

We had a similar thread a while back. I think I discovered that 4 or 5 times as much water has been absorbed by the crust than there is in the oceans. If you were to squeeze it all out, the water level would rise to the point that would require all of humanity to live on just a few island chains.

I'll try and find the old post after work. I seem to recall posting pictures.

Ah ha!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3873049

 

[OmCheeto]

How come the Earth's oceans didn't get absorbed or slowly leak into the ground over the past 4.5 billion years? Especially when the Earth has tectonic activities and the crust constantly split open and closes...etc.

Hey! You started that thread! Or do we have two Flatlanders?

 

[dkotschessaa]

Hey! You started that thread! Or do we have two Flatlanders?

Nope, same person. He posted twice on the first thread and then disappeared... (into the ground?) while everybody else discussed it.

-Dave K

 

[OmCheeto]

Nope, same person. He posted twice on the first thread and then disappeared... (into the ground?) while everybody else discussed it.

-Dave K

Well. um. hmmm...

Everyone was very polite this morning.

I recognized that people had seen the question before, as the answers were very brief.

I thought that it might be a senility test for a moment, and then realized I was quite late for work, and then, whilst sitting at a traffic light, realized that I had not flunked the test!

 

[OmCheeto]

I must say though that I thoroughly enjoyed the thread, as it raised a wide diversity of questions in my head:

What is a rock?
Is "Rock Salt" really a rock? Is "Rock Candy" a rock? They spontaneously melt at NOT & NOP^* when water is added.
Is that how I should explain billiard's "to melt rock, just add water" to grandma?

I was discussing the thread yesterday with my Armenian friend at work, and he asked; "Where did the water come from in the first place?"
At which point I got all Sagany; "Billions and billions of years ago, comets full of water and stuff bombarded the earth. That's where it came from."

Then I told him about how forum members were quite used to a new person showing up every week at the forum and ask the question; "What is gravity?"
To which he responded; "That is so 6th grade."
"Not at PF", I retorted. "The people there are freakin' brilliant! They use big words, and use complicated math, and drop names of famous scientists: Einstein, Minkowski, etc"

That evolved from the fact that Flatland was a bit unique, in that he was not a new person, and had asked the same question, two years apart.

--------

Anyways, looking back over the thread, it appears that I was rude at least twice. I accused billiards of playing an April fools joke, and I referred to Flatland as a "Rabble Rouser".

* Nominal OmCheeto Temperature(72°F) and Pressure(14.7 psi)

 

[billiards]

Not this old thread again. Looking back at it some of my writing was horrible. It took me a while to figure out what the hell I was thinking.

Omcheeto I was not offended by your accusations that i was an april fools joker, just a little mystified. I guess I didn't ever think that melting rocks by adding water was anything special. So I didn't understand that you found it quite a mind-boggling concept to accept. I guess on reflection now I realize that it actually is quite a weird phenomenon, and that people don't have any intuitioin for these things built into them, rather we only know this stuff because some scientists observe it empirically, and when I say "we" I guess I'm really only talking about a small subset of the population that have read or heard about these things.