Post by william on Oct 16, 2010 15:05:19 GMT
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976
As most are aware the moon was formed by a Mars sized object that struck the early earth. That impact removed light elements from the earth’s crust. The earth’s mantel has very low concentrations of light elements such as hydrogen and carbon. Where then is the source of hydrogen and carbon to form the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. One hypothesis to explain the observations is the late veneer hypothesis.
The late veneer hypothesis posits that the planet’s atmosphere was formed after the big splat by late impact of comets. The earth’s atmosphere’s composition however does not match that of comets. It was therefore hypothesized that the comets which formed the earth’s atmosphere came from a cloud from a different proto-star.
There a number of fundamental observations that do not support the late veneer hypothesis. The earth's atmosphere composition of heavy noble gases is a factor of 10 less than meteoroids and comets. Recent analysis of indicates that the Earth is gradually lossing hydrogen, therefore if there was not a slow new influx of hydrogen (CH4) into the atmosphere there would be no oceans.
The alternative explanation is the deep carbon theory. The earth's core is known to contain light elements based on observation of the speed of disturbances traveling through the earth. Specifically what those elements are is not known.
The deep carbon theory has vast amounts of CH4 in the earth's core. That CH4 is released gradually as the core solidifies.
The Russian Ukrainian theory of oil/natural gas formation is based on a deep core source. Thomas Gold took that hypothesis found additional geological and astrophysical observations that the fossil hypothesis and that the late veneer hypothesis could not explain.
The deep carbon hypothesis is more than just what is the source of hydrocarbons. (i.e. It explains observations concerning the formation and evolution of the atmosphere which the late veneer hypothesis cannot explain.)
Sloan Deep Carbon Workshop (Sponsored by the US department of Energy)
www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0veqofQ5QCI
As most are aware the moon was formed by a Mars sized object that struck the early earth. That impact removed light elements from the earth’s crust. The earth’s mantel has very low concentrations of light elements such as hydrogen and carbon. Where then is the source of hydrogen and carbon to form the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. One hypothesis to explain the observations is the late veneer hypothesis.
The late veneer hypothesis posits that the planet’s atmosphere was formed after the big splat by late impact of comets. The earth’s atmosphere’s composition however does not match that of comets. It was therefore hypothesized that the comets which formed the earth’s atmosphere came from a cloud from a different proto-star.
There a number of fundamental observations that do not support the late veneer hypothesis. The earth's atmosphere composition of heavy noble gases is a factor of 10 less than meteoroids and comets. Recent analysis of indicates that the Earth is gradually lossing hydrogen, therefore if there was not a slow new influx of hydrogen (CH4) into the atmosphere there would be no oceans.
The alternative explanation is the deep carbon theory. The earth's core is known to contain light elements based on observation of the speed of disturbances traveling through the earth. Specifically what those elements are is not known.
The deep carbon theory has vast amounts of CH4 in the earth's core. That CH4 is released gradually as the core solidifies.
The Russian Ukrainian theory of oil/natural gas formation is based on a deep core source. Thomas Gold took that hypothesis found additional geological and astrophysical observations that the fossil hypothesis and that the late veneer hypothesis could not explain.
The deep carbon hypothesis is more than just what is the source of hydrocarbons. (i.e. It explains observations concerning the formation and evolution of the atmosphere which the late veneer hypothesis cannot explain.)
Sloan Deep Carbon Workshop (Sponsored by the US department of Energy)
www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008
To date, consideration of the global carbon cycle has focused primarily on near-surface (i.e., relatively low-pressure and temperature) phenomena, with the tacit assumption that oceans, atmosphere and shallow surface environments represent an essentially closed system with respect to biologically available carbon. However, recent data and theoretical analyses from a variety of sources suggest that this assumption may be false. Experimental discoveries of facile high-pressure and temperature organic synthesis and complex interactions between organic molecules and minerals, field observations of deep microbial ecosystems and of anomalies in petroleum geochemistry, and theoretical models of lower crust and upper mantle carbon sources and sinks demand a careful reappraisal of the deep carbon cycle.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0veqofQ5QCI