Talk:Origin of water on Earth

Please note that there is a stubby thing called Origin of the world's oceans, which the German article links to. I assume they should be merged. u p p l a n d 13:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the French version of this article (fr:Origine de l'eau sur la Terre) still being translated? It is much more detailed than this. Tamarkot 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I translated the German one. The french article was being translated until about a year ago I gather, and I added what there was (the bullet points at the start). If anyone is a fluent French speaker, it would be great to have the extra info put in here. --Mark Lewis 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak German but it seems to me "coal-rich" must be a literal translation of a technical term for which the English term is "carbonaceous." I have ventured to make this change in the article. 67.186.28.212 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the French article; I think it needs to be cleaned up before translation. Some portions of it are disputed; anybody who wants to translate it should be sure to look at the discussion page. 67.186.28.212 02:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The link to Dr. C's Oceans Online website does not work. Kier07 06:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing Sources

1. The cooling of hot gases were released causing "outgassing", potentially bringing water to Earth.

3. Liquid may have been "locked" in the Earth's rocks and leaked out over millions of years.

Outgassing is defined by Wikipedia as, "the slow release of a gas that was trapped, frozen, absorbed or adsorbed in some material." This "slow release" of a gas reads very much like the word "leaked". Items #1 and #3 should be expounded.

-- Thangalin 11:32, 23 December 2006 (PST)

Traditional way

One very traditional way is that

• 1. . Volcanoes erupted
  2. . The Volcanoes made storms
  3. . The Storms brought rain.
  4. . It rained a lot,
  5. . So much that it made oceans.

-- Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's wrong, blame the public! . --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with calvin cycle?

this is a confusing topic!

If the calvin cycle article is correct, the cycle consumes, not produces water.

This is the van Niel equation that was discovered using purple sulfur bacteria, where the bacteria did not release Oxygen gas during their process of making carbohydrates. Check almost any college level Biology text--<ref: Biology by Jonathan Losos, Ken Mason and Susan Singer, 2008 McGraw-Hill>. (RiverdaleBioGuy (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

To me, the section on "The role of organisms" is extremely unclear. I was going to edit it for clarity when I realised I didn't know exactly what was being said. Indigo990 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Calvin Cycle article clearly states, “…convert carbon dioxide and water into organic compounds[2] that can be used by the organism (and by animals that feed on it).” This would make the suggestion in the Origin of water on Earth article incorrect. Why not just remove it? Andrew Colvin (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Calvin Cycle does not make water. I edited the section for accuracy and clarity. Photosynthesis using sulfur is possible; the water contribution today is negligible, but it is debatable how significant this contribution was. A cursory search did not turn up any scientific articles suggesting this, but I was reluctant to remove the section completely. Anyone have citations for the theory? 74.248.218.179 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

New information on ocean formation

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/63397/title/Between_the_sheets

Contradiction with evolution of the solar system

This article appears to contradict the Formation and evolution of the Solar System article. It that article it states that "The inner Solar System, the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals that formed there could only form from compounds with high melting points, such as metals (like iron, nickel, and aluminium) and rocky silicates.". In this article, it seems to imply that the water was already present.

99.241.217.164 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You can change it to make sense if you would like. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 20:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lieberman's Theory

It is conjectured that every cubic meter of the vacuum of outer space contains approximately 1 hydrogen atom. Thus, there are unpaired hydrogen atoms out there to a magnitude larger any of us can comprehend which may or may not be stationary. Regardless of the movement of these particular atoms - planets, solar systems, and galaxies are constantly rotating around and will collide with countless numbers of these atoms over time. Under the right conditions (temperature, pressure, rotation), including an oxygen dense atmosphere - it may be possible that these unpaired hydrogen atoms react with planetary oxygen to form water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexlieberman (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Water in the Earth's mantle

It doesn't surprise me, that this Wiki article doesn't mention a thing, about the 3 times the amount of Ocean water was discovered deep in the Earth's mantle, in June of 2014. http://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden-ocean-locked-in-earth-mantle.html

Also someone added a potentially 'unreliable source' link to the page: http://www.nature.com/news/earth-has-water-older-than-the-sun-1.16011 Zykodern (talk)