The Deep Water Cycle

originally posted by: Degradation33

Once it passes a certain point, water can't exist. Pressure splits it apart.

pressure and temperature would only make it become a supercritical fluid, which would explain its permeability through the various geological layers:

"A supercritical fluid (SCF), at a temperature and pressure above its critical point but below the pressure required to become a solid[73], can effuse through porous solids like a gas"
link

It truly is an amazing substance. It is likely that all 3 exist in the mantle: regular aqueous solutions, hydrous melts, and supercritical water:

"There is a general consensus that at subduction zones, mass transfer from the subducted slab to the overlying mantle wedge is mediated by a hydrous mobile phase. However, it is under intense debate whether this phase is an aqueous fluid, hydrous silicate melt, or supercritical fluid with intermediate composition (H2O concentration in the range of 30 wt%–70 wt%). Supercritical fluids, with fluid-like viscosity and melt-like wetting and element-carrying capability, are an ideal agent for chemical transport at subduction zones."

link

a reply to: cooperton

Okay, dude.

Just imagine it's in whatever form that's useful to you and ignore what everyone else says. That's science right there. I realize it's the only way you can keep this stupid crap alive, but...

Make this say whatever you want:

We review mineral physics, geophysical, and geochemical studies related to the global water circulation and conclude that the water content has a peak in the mantle transition zone (MTZ) with a value of 0.1–1 wt% (with large regional variations). When water-rich MTZ materials are transported out of the MTZ, partial melting occurs. Vertical direction of melt migration is determined by the density contrast between the melts and coexisting minerals. Because a density change associated with a phase transformation occurs sharply for a solid but more gradually for a melt, melts formed above the phase transformation depth are generally heavier than solids, whereas melts formed below the transformation depth are lighter than solids. Consequently, hydrous melts formed either above or below the MTZ return to the MTZ, maintaining its high water content. However, the MTZ water content cannot increase without limit. The melt-solid density contrast above the 410 km depends on the temperature. In cooler regions, melting will occur only in the presence of very water-rich materials. Melts produced in these regions have high water content and hence can be buoyant above the 410 km, removing water from the MTZ.

This as well:

Due to mantle convection and resultant partial melting and melt transfer, water may circulate deep into the mantle and return through Earth’s surface into the oceans.

But... but... but it says water. Please be sure to only see the part in bold. And think it means supercritical water STAYS SEPARATE FROM EVERYTHING ELSE.

And here's another picture to take wildly out of context and think supports what you say...



But I'll give you the part about supercritical fluid in high pressure situations.

phys.org...

Under the high temperature and pressure conditions deep in the Earth, silicate and fluids can be completely mixed, forging a supercritical geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids.

And this is what the melt-aqueous binary supercritical fluids looks like:

Fluids are like the "blood" inside the solid Earth, playing an important role in the transportation of matter and energy. Due to the compositional difference, rocks that are composed mainly of silicate and common fluids have a typically low level of miscibility.

Please, creationism, make this say whatever the hell you want too.

This kind of melt network can facilitate the simultaneously capture of silicate melts and aqueous fluids with different proportions when mineral crystallizations crystalize. Meanwhile, the spinodal decomposition of the integral decomposition mechanism will significantly contribute to the efficiency of the melt-fluid phase separation, which may have important implications for the formation of magmatic hydrothermal deposits.

This study reported for the first time the spinodal decomposition of supercritical fluid and the formation of magmatic network.

I know you'll make this totally support that it is all floating in liquid water getting absorbed, because it yields that magic resevoir of water to flood Earth with.

originally posted by: Degradation33

"aqueous solution" means water with dissolved solutes. You're proving my point for me. This diagram is showing that at supercritical temperatures, the silicate melts and the aqueous solution have an increase miscibility (ability to form a homogenous mixture). From your own source:

"Under the high temperature and pressure conditions deep in the Earth, silicate and fluids can be completely mixed, forging a supercritical geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids. However, much remains to be done to reveal the evolution process of supercritical fluid because of the difficulties in experimenting."

They are clearly saying there is supercritical and regular aqueous solutions (water) in these layers. How many more source do you require until you admit this? Here's more:

"Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid [high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies. The data provide important information for understanding the characteristics of UHP fluids, especially supercritical fluids. Supercritical fluids with high dissolved contents of carbon (2 wt.%) and sulfur (3 wt.%) released during deep subduction could cause efficient migration of carbon and sulfur from slabs. This improves their recycling efficiency in the subduction zone, playing a vital role in the deep cycling of these elements. The contribution of supercritical fluids to the deep carbon and sulfur cycle may have been significantly underestimated previously."

Look at that, my prediction of supercritical water being in the mantle was shown to be correct.

"According to 3D modeling and calculations, the calculated average composition of the captured fluids can be estimated as 22.5 wt.% SiO2, 13.2 wt.% CaO, 7.0 wt.% SO3, 5.5 wt.% CO2, 3.4 wt.% Al2O3, 4.5 wt.% MgO, 1.3 wt.% TFe2O3, 0. 6 wt.% BaO, and 41.6 wt.% H2O, with trace amounts of Li, Na, and K. As shown in Table 1, the reconstructed fluid composition of MFIs is between a hydrous melt and an aqueous fluid and it is consistent with the composition of supercritical fluid reported by Ni et al. (1), i.e., the concentrations of solute range from 30 to 70 wt.%."

link

But I'll give you the part about supercritical fluid in high pressure situations.

phys.org...

Under the high temperature and pressure conditions deep in the Earth, silicate and fluids can be completely mixed, forging a supercritical geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids.

And this is what the melt-aqueous binary supercritical fluids looks like:

Fluids are like the "blood" inside the solid Earth, playing an important role in the transportation of matter and energy. Due to the compositional difference, rocks that are composed mainly of silicate and common fluids have a typically low level of miscibility.

This study reported for the first time the spinodal decomposition of supercritical fluid and the formation of magmatic network.

I know you'll make this totally support that it is all floating in liquid water getting absorbed, because it yields that magic resevoir of water to flood Earth with.

No, from very early on in these discussions I was referring to it likely being a supercritical fluid. water can maintain its liquid state as an aqueous solution at lower pressures and temperatures closer to the surface. So can we finally put this debate to rest? There is clearly water in the form of hydroxylated minerals, aqueous solutions (typical water with dissolved solutes), and water in the supercritical form present in the various regions of the mantle.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh, blind preacher for the pineyed congregation, enlighten no one.

You can insert your own narrative where you want. But I'd stop short of thinking that you have earned right to explain this to anyone outside of a myopic religious environment.

I'm freaking annoyed by this. Little tolerance, making my skin crawl. Your obstinate true belief and alternate reality makes me want to scream.

Nevermind... switching up with this.

**********************

At this point, whatever super-critical water floats your magic boat. Just ignore the part where it says rocks that are composed mainly of silicate and common fluids.

Screw it....

Give you chance to prove it.

If your "reservoir" of "supercritical water", which is certainly not trapped inside crystaline structure, is exactly like you say, I want YOU to come up with a theory for how to transfer all the water in the MTZ to the surface in one day, or even 40 days, and remain in stable liquid form the entire time. THE ENTIRE FREAKING STORE OF WATER INSIDE MTZ CRYSTAL WITHOUT THE SILICATES

If there is water down there in magic Noah flood-ready form, I want to know how you decrease pressure or increase temperature to the point you obliterate the MTZ and force out the water in stable liquid form.

And then I want to take your idea, not to this thread, but to AN ACTUALLY GEOLOGY forum and ask THEM, if it "holds water". A non-theology based one.

Otherwise, you will continue to make people stupid if they listen to you, and you will inevitably become a fixture of belligerent antagonism and true belief. Another evangelical that does 'God's work' through making people hostile and wanting to hurt them.

And no, it's not because they can't handle what you say, as your types like to believe, it's because you don't f*cking listen to what they say.

It makes you an intellectual black hole and the furtherst thing from science, or being considered an authority on the topic..

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Oh, blind preacher for the pineyed congregation, enlighten no one.

You can insert your own narrative where you want. But I'd stop short of thinking that you have earned right to explain this to anyone outside of a myopic religious environment.

I'm freaking annoyed by this. Little tolerance, making my skin crawl. Your obstinate true belief and alternate reality makes me want to scream.

Nevermind... switching up with this.

**********************

This is an unhealthy way of admitting you were wrong.

If your "reservoir" of "supercritical water", which is certainly not trapped inside crystaline structure, is exactly like you say, I want YOU to come up with a theory for how to transfer all the water in the MTZ to the surface in one day, or even 40 days, and remain in stable liquid form the entire time. THE ENTIRE FREAKING STORE OF WATER INSIDE MTZ CRYSTAL WITHOUT THE SILICATES

The mantle is enormous, about 2,000,000,000,000 cubic kilometers. All the water in the ocean is only about 1,000,000 cubic kilometers. In order to reach Everest, you'd need about 3x more water than there is in the ocean now, meaning we would need 3,000,000 cubic kilometers of water. Given the volume of the mantle, this is literally a drop in the bucket. if we go off the estimate of these researchers:

"According to 3D modeling and calculations, the calculated average composition of the captured fluids can be estimated as 22.5 wt.% SiO2, 13.2 wt.% CaO, 7.0 wt.% SO3, 5.5 wt.% CO2, 3.4 wt.% Al2O3, 4.5 wt.% MgO, 1.3 wt.% TFe2O3, 0. 6 wt.% BaO, and 41.6 wt.% H2O, with trace amounts of Li, Na, and K. As shown in Table 1, the reconstructed fluid composition of MFIs is between a hydrous melt and an aqueous fluid and it is consistent with the composition of supercritical fluid reported by Ni et al. (1), i.e., the concentrations of solute range from 30 to 70 wt.%."

link

We can assume approximately that 41.6% of the volume of the mantle is water. multiply the volume of the mantle by 41.6% to achieve the volume of water in this layer as approximately 2,000,000,000,000 x 0.416 = 832,000,000,000 cubic kilometers of water in the mantle. 3,000,000 cubic miles to fill up the oceans on the surface to Everest means we would only need 3,000,000/832,000,000,000 = 0.00036% of the water in the mantle to be forced upon the earth.

This minute amount of water release from the mantle could be achieved by a slight expansion of the core, and/or an increased pressure or temperature in the mantle.

Another evangelical that does 'God's work' through making people hostile and wanting to hurt them.

This sounds like a 'you' problem. if me investigating empirical science to determine various hypotheses infuriates you so much that you feel the need to hurt me, then you really need to re-evaluate wtf you're doing.

a reply to: cooperton


Did you really just do the, "Ha, I won, because you backed down for rhetorical reasons" thing?

You are a piece of work..

This minute amount of water release from the mantle could be achieved by a slight expansion of the core, and/or an increased pressure or temperature in the mantle.

You accomplished nothing except suggesting the core needs to expand. I guess your god does that, huh?

How do you expand the core enough?
Do you know how much P/T change is required?
How you going to increase temperature?

Any one of those.

A P/T change could obliterate the "trappability" of thevMTZ, regardless of what form 'the water' is trapped there in (rhetorically speaking, not a concession), but how are you going to do it?

It likes staying trapped in the rock, or "down there in the MTZ floating", whatever, you don't acknowledge the "INSIDE rock" part, or the upwelled contribution to the magmatic network part, or anything that says something you don't want it to part, so screw that part of it altogether.

It's moot to your ineptitude anyway.

You still have failed to provide a mechanism by which the core would expand enough, and change the P/T enough, to PUSH IT ALL TO THE SURFACE IN LIQUID FORM THROUGH 410 KM OF OLIVINE, SILICATE MELTS, MAGMAS, AND CRUST, WHICH IS ALSO BEING AFFECTED BY THIS SUDDEN P/T CHANGE.

FINALLY, HOW COULD YOU DO THIS WITHOUT CAUSING SIMULTANEOUS FLOOD VOLCANISM WORSE THAN ANY FLOOD.

Keep in mind such a pressure change would effect the upper parts too. It too would rise via the same mechanisms before the 'liquid water' you insist is down there, flood ready, could even get to the surface.

It's an entire half cycle of forced upwelling, the magma would be forced the surface first if P/T is chaged enough to obliterate the MTZ.

So, prevent the P/T change from causing flood volcanism while simultaneously pushing ONLY liquid water to the surface.

Keep in mind:

Under the high temperature and pressure conditions deep in the Earth, silicate and fluids can be completely mixed, forging a supercritical geological fluid with the composition "thicker" than magmatic melts and "thinner" than aqueous liquids.

Our results suggest that there is complete miscibility between silicate melts and water in most of the upper mantle,

You must interpret the above as meaning WATER IS ALMOST ALWAYS MIXED WITH SILICATE MELTS.

The supercritical geological fluid at this depth is a silicate-aqueous mix, you must acknowledge it's viscosity.

You must acknowledge "aqueous fluid" ≠ "supercritical fluid" in the MTZ.

SO, WITH THAT SAID, ONLY SEND THE 'WATER', YOU MUST KEEP ALL MAGMA IN EARTH WHILE ONLY SENDING THE 'WATER'.

How do you do that without destroying the planet itself?

Just the water. All ears.

REGARDLESS of whether it's in liquid form with rocks floating in it, like you think, or inside the rock itself, provide the entire process.

a reply to: Degradation33

Wait, I messed up the rhetoric.

Ammendment:

You dont have to acknowledge these. I mean you do, but your argument is that the water is liberated completely and separate, so you can ignore these considerations for YOUR premise.

You must interpret the above as meaning WATER IS ALMOST ALWAYS MIXED WITH SILICATE MELTS.

The supercritical geological fluid at this depth is a silicate-aqueous mix, you must acknowledge it's viscosity.

You must acknowledge "aqueous fluid" ≠ "supercritical fluid" in the MTZ.

I honestly just want to know how you get the water to the surface without sending any magma ahead of it, because you changed the pressure to drain the MTZ...

I know I am kinda bitchy right now, sorta couldn't fight it anymore.

But still waiting to hear how you propose to change the pressure is earth enough to push all the 'water' out of the transition zone.

How does a "pressure change in the core" dehydrate the ringwoodite and wadsleyite, wait, can't say that, get all the 'water' out of the transition zone, and send it all the way to the top of Mt. Everest, without releasing any magma or anything else ahead of it?

Can you even acknowledge 95% of all H2O in the mantle is in the high-pressure olivine polymorph crystals? No? Didn't think so. Just gonna insert your own reality some more?

Remember the pressure change can't affect silicate melts or magma, only the 'water' can be pushed up. How are you going to do it?

originally posted by: Degradation33
Can you even acknowledge 95% of all H2O in the mantle is in the high-pressure olivine polymorph crystals? No? Didn't think so. Just gonna insert your own reality some more?

You're referring to older out-dated sources. This source from 2023 says that there is actually very large amounts of water, they estimated around 40% of the weight of these deep subduction regions:

"Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid [high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies. The data provide important information for understanding the characteristics of UHP fluids, especially supercritical fluids... The contribution of supercritical fluids to the deep carbon and sulfur cycle may have been significantly underestimated previously."
link

Now will you acknowledge there is significant amounts of water in the form of liquid and supercritical fluid? Or are you denying the latest science so you can avoid admitting you were wrong?

But still waiting to hear how you propose to change the pressure is earth enough to push all the 'water' out of the transition zone.

We'll discuss that once you concede there is indeed free water (both liquid and supercritical) in these regions that are able to flow and help the deep water cycle perpetuate, as explained by the researchers in the quote above. Turns out that the water was not trapped in the mineral, the mineral was dissolved in the water.

a reply to: cooperton

Turns out that the water was not trapped in the mineral, the mineral was dissolved in the water.

And what's the solubility constants for all the minerals??? You failed to include the volume of mineral in the deposits and the types of minerals present. Each one has a specific solubility constant in water. A change in pressure changes that constant. Do you know what that scale is? I don't think so.

Your flood did not happen. There's zero evidence for a global flood.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's the solubility constants for most minerals and a link to the complete table. Did you calculate the concentration of each mineral to know how much was actually dissolved in water?

* Values match the thermodynamic database in VMINTEQ v. 3.1 except for italicized values, which are from MINEQL+ ver. 4.6. Underlined values are from Benjamin.1
Additional solids in the VMINTEQ database are not included here.
† Values are for the reaction MeX → Me + X, except for (hydr)oxide solids (i.e., Me(OH)x or MxOy, MeOOH) where the values are *Ks0 values (see section 10.5), and the
corresponding reactions are
Me(OH)x + xH+ → Mex+ + xH2O,
MexOy + 2yH+ → Me(2y/x)+ + yH2O,
MeOOH + 3H+ → Me3+ + 2H2O.
Other solids containing hydroxide release a hydroxide ion for the K values given.
§ Solubility constants for sulfide minerals assume pKa2 = 17.3 for HS– → H+ + S2–
, which is the value in VMINTEQ v. 3.1 and is consistent with recent measurements.2

global.oup.com... _minerals.pdf

a reply to: cooperton

Cool study. Now use one for the transition zone. Are you sure you didn't just find something you think backs you up and use it erroneously?

You're referring to older out-dated sources. This source from 2023 says that there is actually very large amounts of water, they estimated around 40% of the weight of these deep subduction regions:

Oh I am?

"Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid [high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies. The data provide important information for understanding the characteristics of UHP fluids, especially supercritical fluids..."

You realized you just used a paper on subduction zones, about the deep carbon/sulfur cycle. It speaks nothing for MTZ H20, except for some of the rock, like omphacite/garnet, that could eventually bring it there.

This is not obout the 'water' in the MTZ, it's about supercritical fluid in subduction zones, which have LONG been known to be extremely hydrated.

I'm pretty sure this is about that 5% of water NOT trapped in the MTZ, and it's reinsertion into volcanic systems via basalt-H20 fluids.

This improves their recycling efficiency in the subduction zone, playing a vital role in the deep cycling of these elements. The contribution of supercritical fluids to the deep carbon and sulfur cycle may have been significantly underestimated previously.

Where's my olivine?
Where's my ringwoodite?
Where are depths past 250 km depth?

This seems about metamorphic veins, subduction slabs, and water-rich overlying volcanic arcs.

But it does mention Omphacite

inclusions in omphacite (Table 1). The SiO2 contents range from 12.9 wt.% to 31.5 wt.%, but typically fall around 25 wt.%, and the content of H2O is always around 45 wt.%

Omphacite is the dominated phase in the subducted oceanic crust in the Earth's upper mantle. The Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt, which makes up oceanic crust, goes through ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic process and transforms to eclogite at depth ~60 km in the subduction zones.[9] The major mineral components of eclogite include omphacite, garnet and high-pressure silica phases (coesite and stishovite).[8] As depth increases, the omphacite in eclogite gradually transforms to majoritic garnet. Omphacite is stable up to 500 km depth in the Earth's interior.[8][10] Considering the cold geotherm of subducted slabs, omphacite can be stable even in deeper mantle..

I just skimmed through it, but I don't think this related to the water content of the transition zone, or a dispute against how that water exists. It mentions garnet, which does exist to 660 km. But this is more about the basalt-H20 systems.

But I swear it's still rocks absorbing the 'WATER', quote unquote.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Extensive infrared (IR) spectroscopic analyses on ‘nominally anhydrous minerals’ (NAMs), such as olivine, pyroxene and garnet, have revealed that they have a considerable ability to dissolve water and, hence, the upper mantle and the transition zone can be large reservoirs for water in Earthʼs interior (Bell and Rossman, 1992a, Hirschmann et al., 2005). (In this study, ‘water’ refers to any water-related species such as hydrogen, hydroxyl and/or molecular water detected as O–H stretching with infrared spectroscopy.) Garnets from ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic rocks have water contents up to ∼1000 wt. ppm H2O" 

So does rock dissolve water or water dissolve rock?

Nevermind...

You know what?

You can think this backs you up if you want.
You can think the hydration of a subducting slab at 70 km is applicable to the 'water' in the MTZ.
You can ignore the depths and temperatures cited in the study.
You can ignore how water inside garnet is transported to the MTZ AFTER these processes have taken place.

Have fun in the supercritical water. Maybe you'll dissolve into it?

a reply to: Degradation33

And still waiting to hear how you propose to drain the transition zone of its 'water' to flood Earth.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

Here's the solubility constants for most minerals and a link to the complete table. Did you calculate the concentration of each mineral to know how much was actually dissolved in water?

Solubility of minerals in water is drastically different when it is pressurized and hot enough to become a supercritical fluid. The solubility reaches as much as 60% when water is in the supercritical fluid state:

" Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid [high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies."
link


Here is a progression picture of water heating up (from right to left) to the point of becoming supercritical, and dissolving the remnants of the mineral melt:

a reply to: cooperton

FFS, YOU SOUND RETARDED.

Act like you understand that.

Such a pseudointellectual.

Here is a progression picture of water heating up (from right to left) to the point of becoming supercritical, and dissolving the remnants of the mineral melt:

Do this on your level of understanding

If the supercritical fluid is a total mix of silicate/H20, how does it separate back into the pure water you need to flood the earth?

Can't flood as a supercritical Silicate-H20.
What do you think it gets rid of the silicate or something and becomes pure water?

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

FFS, YOU SOUND RETARDED.

Act like you understand that.

Such a pseudointellectual.

What did I say that was wrong in my analysis? Or are you just pissed off that it proves you were wrong this whole time?

Do this on your level of understanding

If the supercritical fluid is a total mix of silicate/H20, how does it separate back into the pure water you need to flood the earth ?

When the supercritical fluid goes back below its critical point, the dissolved minerals will precipitate and the supercritical fluid water will return to being a regular liquid. Yet again, as shown in the picture you provided earlier (thanks again for that, key component to the point I was conveying).



Notice when it reaches below a certain temperature, the minerals precipitate and the water (referred to as an aqueous fluid in the diagram) returns to being a regular liquid.

I just skimmed through it, but I don't think this related to the water content of the transition zone

As I said before, the presence of water in the mantle is not contingent upon it being in the transition zone. Although extensive hydroxylation is a good sign that it is indeed present there as well as the other regions discussed so far.

a reply to: cooperton

That was a hypothetical idiot question and you answered it seriously. I have to dumb myself down for this one.

So... the slab fluid, in supercritical form, in the upper mantle, above 200km, accompanying the subduction plate flooded the earth now?

So what does this have to do with the ringweoodite again?

That's where the most 'water' is.

You're the type of poster that makes people want to DOX them and show up to hurt them just for the fun if it. Just to feel better about the pseudointellectual creationist that pissed them off.

Why?

BECAUSE IT PISSES PEOPLE OFF WHEN A PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL CREATIONIST TELLS THEM THEY ARE WRONG USING FALLACY.

a reply to: Degradation33

NOW STOP SIDE STEPPING AND ANSWER THIS.

How does a "pressure change in the core" dehydrate the ringwoodite and wadsleyite" (and everything else) and send it all the way to the top of Mt. Everest, without releasing any magma or anything else ahead of it?

If you want the H2O in the transition zone (NOT THE F*CKING WEDGE) how are you going to get ONLY THAT TO THE SURFACE.

EVERYTHING else you say is bull# if you can't answer that.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

That was a hypothetical idiot question and you answered it seriously. I have to dumb myself down for this one.

So... the slab fluid, in supercritical form, in the upper mantle, above 200km, accompanying the subduction plate flooded the earth now?

No, when pressures and temperatures normalize closer to earth's surface it would become regular fluid water again, as shown before.

So what does this have to do with the ringweoodite again?

That's where the most 'water' is.

No I said in my prior post that water in the mantle is not contingent upon it all being in the transition zone, even though it most definitely does contain vast amounts of water considering all the minerals there are hydroxylated.

You're the type of poster that makes people want to DOX them and show up to hurt them just for the fun if it. Just to feel better about the pseudointellectual creationist that pissed them off.

Why?

BECAUSE IT PISSES PEOPLE OFF WHEN A PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL CREATIONIST TELLS THEM THEY ARE WRONG USING FALLACY.

hahahaha, the fruits of your false knowledge exposed.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Degradation33

NOW STOP SIDE STEPPING AND ANSWER THIS.

"How does a "pressure change in the core" dehydrate the ringwoodite and wadsleyite" (and everything else) and send it all the way to the top of Mt. Everest, without releasing any magma or anything else ahead of it?"

I'll answer this when you admit there is significant amounts of water in the mantle. Until then there's no point in further discussion because it is clear you have lost objectivity.