Hydrogen escape into space, how much?

[freeztar]

Thanks for the link cyclone. :zip:

 

So, the main question I have is if it is possible for these ions to form H2 (?) in the upper atmosphere and then undergo terrestrial sequestration. It seems to me like the hydrogen ions would readily escape the atmosphere after being introduced. :doh:

[cyclonebuster]

Thanks for the link cyclone. :zip:

 

So, the main question I have is if it is possible for these ions to form H2 (?) in the upper atmosphere and then undergo terrestrial sequestration. It seems to me like the hydrogen ions would readily escape the atmosphere after being introduced. :doh:

 

 

Correct! Most but not all! I don't think we can ever figure out exactly how many!

[freeztar]

Here's another link that gives "a lower limit to Jeans escape rate". The last page has hydrogen numbers, but unfortunately they are given as a fraction of jeans escape flux over delta-K (temperature) and I can't really make sense of it. Perhaps someone adept in mathematics/physics can assist in the interpretation.

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1974MNRAS.167..215G&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

[CharlieO]

Reviewed as many links as I could spare time to download. Now seems obvious that increasing numbers of scientists believe a LOT of hydrogen is escaping into space, albeit their estimates, when given, vary widely. What I found most interesting is the fact that the minimum estimated rates over billions of years will add up to a sizeable portion of Earth.

 

Recent research at Colo Univ, with cooperation from the nearby NOAA facility, suggests an even greater hydrogen escape rate than today in the first billion years. Not much help for the idea of useful amounts of hydrogen coming to Earth from outer space, but considerable help for the concept of hydrogen effusing from within Earth. Possibly from an evaporating hydrogen reservoir within? Earth's Core, perhaps?

 

Contacted Caltech, but no Robert Brinkmann listed as alumni. There is a meteorologist W. Brinkmann who did related atmospheric research. Also, a geographer Brinkmann teaching at South Florida Univ, but both seem to be much younger and obtained their degrees elsewhere. Still trying to find more recent and, hopefully, more exact measurements as to the amount of hydrogen escaping into space.

 

Thanks for the links. Made the hours of waiting on AOL dial-up to download articles worthwhile. What with living on the high plains, I can't find a wireless signal. Still waiting for Qwest communications to enable their broadband service, due soon, so I haven't contracted with satellite service, which requires a one year contract. Frustrating.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[CharlieO]

Science 3 August 2001:

Vol. 293. no. 5531, pp. 839 - 843

 

Biogenic Methane, Hydrogen Escape, and the Irreversible Oxidation of Early Earth

 

David C. Catling, Kevin J. Zahnle, Christopher P. McKay

 

The low O2 content of the Archean atmosphere implies that methane should have been present at levels ~102 to 103 parts per million volume (ppmv) (compared with 1.7 ppmv today) given a plausible biogenic source. CH4 is favored as the greenhouse gas that countered the lower luminosity of the early Sun. But abundant CH4 implies that hydrogen escapes into space on orders of magnitude faster than today. Such reductant loss oxidizes the Earth. Photosynthesis splits water into O2 and H, and methanogenesis transfers the H into CH4. Hydrogen escape after CH4 photolysis, therefore, causes a net gain of oxygen [CO2 + 2H2O CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + O2 + 4H (escapes into space)].

[Turtle]

Reviewed as many links as I could spare time to download. Now seems obvious that increasing numbers of scientists believe a LOT of hydrogen is escaping into space, albeit their estimates, when given, vary widely. What I found most interesting is the fact that the minimum estimated rates over billions of years will add up to a sizeable portion of Earth.

...

Regards, CharlieO

 

I ran across a bit you might find of interest Charlie; I was actually looking for info on tritium in seawater.

 

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Abstract: Surface seawater and water vapor about 10 m above the sea level were collected in the Pacific and Indian Oceans during the expedition of KH-96-5 to examine tritium concentrations in open sea. The tritium concentration in the water vapor was one order of magnitude higher than that in the surface seawater, attributed to downward movement of naturally occurring tritium from stratosphere to troposphere.

 

You might look around about meteoric dust and how many tons fall to Earth annually. Since Earth is still here in a significant amount, on the whole it seems as much stuff falls in as blows away. :( :eek2:

[CharlieO]

TURTLE: Good link, thank you. Radioactive Tritium is created by solar radiation during the separation of hydrogen from either water vapor or methane in the stratosphere, albeit apparently an extremely rare isotope. Tritium is heavier than hydrogen, so it makes sense for tritium to descend back down to Earth's atmosphere. If the ratio of tritium to hydrogen in the stratosphere can be confirmed during solar radiation and the total amount of tritium measured in Earth's atmosphere, this might indicate the total amount of hydrogen escaping into space. In any event, what is amazing to me is the delicate balance between the loss of lighter hydrogen into space and retention back to Earth of the only slightly heavier tritium under the same gravitational and centrifugal forces.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[CharlieO]

Thanks to TURTLE I was able to review references in Brinkmann's thesis which proved very informative. These contained many studies of hydrogen loss into space. The earliest was theoritical: J. E. Jeans, in 1916, [Cambridge, London], using the known physical characteristics of gases at that time, calculated the escape rate for Hydrogen atoms at 2,400,000,000 hydrogen atoms per square centimeter per second. However, Terry Brinkmann, a researcher at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and author of earlier studies on the upper atmosphere, was able to reference more current upper atmospheric measurements from JPL, NASA, USAF and others, including many Japanese studies.

 

He also included in his calculations many studies which were made measuring the effects of solar angle, which is at right angles at the poles and there far less effective in the photo-disassociation separation of hydrogen from oxygen [H+O+H] or methane [C+H^4]. Using these studies, he came up with an overall hydrogen atoms loss into space of 1,600,000,000 hydrogen atoms per square centimeter per second: 1.6 x 10^9 x cm^-2 x sec^-1.

 

This is less than Jeans theoretical calculation of 2.4 x 10^9 x cm^-2 x sec^-1 for hydrogen loss into space. However, Brinkmann had the advantage of obtaining physical measurements from thousands of upper atmospheric tests made in every part of the globe, including the poles. Thus, I believe Brinkmann's calculation is very close to the actual loss rate of hydrogen atoms into space, which is far, far greater than any theoretical estimates made of hydrogen atoms arriving into Earth's atmosphere on solar winds; which are largely deflected by Earth's magnetosphere in theory.

 

Brinkmann's calculation appears to equate into 1,123,200 Kg of hydrogen atoms being lost into space every day or 4.1^8 Kg being lost into space every year. This is more than I ever considered possible, especially since Earth has been solidified for some 4+ billion years. However, early in Earth's history, the geologic and Paleozoic records seem to indicate a far lesser amount of hydrogen, mainly methane [CH4] with virtually no oxygen available to form water vapor, was in Earth's atmosphere for the first billion years or more and therefore little hydrogen may have been be lost into space during that period.

 

In any event, if Brinkmann's rate of hydrogen being lost into space is correct, this supports the concept that there must have been an enormous reservoir of hydrogen within Earth when it was solidified and there may still be a substantial reservoir from which considerable amounts of hydrogen continue to effuse from within and then rise into Earth's atmosphere, there to be lost into space. Seems like good support for a hydrogen core.

 

Regards to all, CharlieO

[CraigD]

Thanks to TURTLE I was able to review references in Brinkmann's thesis which proved very informative.

…

Brinkmann's calculation appears to equate into 1,123,200 Kg of hydrogen atoms being lost into space every day or 4.1^8 Kg being lost into space every year.

:thumbs_up This appears to be a good estimate of the present-day rate of loss of hydrogen from Earth’s atmosphere into space.

In any event, if Brinkmann's rate of hydrogen being lost into space is correct, this supports the concept that there must have been an enormous reservoir of hydrogen within Earth when it was solidified and there may still be a substantial reservoir from which considerable amounts of hydrogen continue to effuse from within and then rise into Earth's atmosphere, there to be lost into space. Seems like good support for a hydrogen core.

I don’t see how this loss rate contradicts conventional theory or Earth’s composition and formation, which estimates Earth’s original composition as being about the same as present day chondrite meteoroids, 0.07% hydrogen by mass. Earth’s mass is about [math]6 \times 10^{24} \,\mbox{kg}[/math], so its original mass of hydrogen according to conventional theory is about [math]4.2 \times 10^{21} \,\mbox{kg}[/math]. A loss rate of [math]4.1 \times 10^8 \,\mbox{kg/year}[/math], times the estimate age of the Earth of about [math]4.5 \times 10^9 \,\mbox{years}[/math], is about [math]1.8 \times 10^{18} \,\mbox{kg}[/math], about 0.04% of the available mass.

 

So, even ignoring possible sources of infalling hydrogen, such as meteorites, Brinkman’s and Jean’s estimated hydrogen loss rate don’t appear to contradict conventional theory.

[modest]

After all, the original assumption of Earth having an iron core was based on the need for a ferromagnetic material to explain the existance of Earth's magnetic field. Unfortunately, scientists at that time were ignorant of both the existance and physical properties of metallic hydrogen, which, also being magnetic, could create Earth's magnetic field without any need for the illogical spinning of an inner core within an outer core.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

I don't think rock (liquid or solid) can float on hydrogen (liquid or metallic). If earth was formed with 1/2 hydrogen and 1/2 rock, the rock (being more dense) would comprise the center and the hydrogen (being less dense) would comprise the outer layers.

 

This is very much like Jupiter and Saturn - and even more like the ice giants Neptune and Uranus. They have substantial amounts of rock and hydrogen where the rock has fallen to the center. You wouldn't expect any of the gas giants or ice giants to have rocky surfaces. You likewise wouldn't expect earth to have liquid and metallic hydrogen in its center.

 

-modest

[CharlieO]

Jeans' 1916 estimate of hydrogen loss from Earth into space was 18.9 Kg/sec or 657,805 short tons per year. Brinkmann, having the advantage of access to high altitude studies all over the world and being employed by Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an atmospheric researcher, arrived in 1969 with an estimate of 13 Kg/sec or 451,912 short tons per year. Regardless of how much this represents of Earth's assumed original mass, this existing, physical loss of hydrogen from within Earth is significant. Therefore, there must be a hydrogen reservoir within Earth that is evaporating in the same manner as seen for other planets; leaving behind a comet-like tail of hydrogen that disappears into space.

 

It is worth noting that some, more recent research has scientists claiming far greater hydrogen loss rates during Earth's first Billion years, while others are claiming far less hydrogen was lost during the same time period.

 

Both sets of researchers have impressive academic credentials and both have produced a considerable number of complex calculations, supported by varied experiments which only seem to support the theories of their researchers. However, none of them have any physical proof. I believe this only proves, that without physical evidence, you only have little more than complex assumptions. Just as no one has any physical proof that Earth has an Iron core or one of a similar alloy.

 

Again, the concept of Earth having an Iron core is only an assumption, no doubt made in good faith many years ago when it was discovered that Earth had a magnetic field. Then, scientists at that time logically assumed Earth's core must be composed of ferromagnetic materials, the only known magnetic material. This assumption was made largely due to the fact that scientists at that time were ignorant of the properties of magnetic, metallic hydrogen or that metallic hydrogen could even exist.

 

Since then, the concept of Earth having a ferromagnetic core has become a matter of unquestioning dogma for most, but not all. However, there is NO physical evidence to support this assumption; beyond innumerable and varied interpretations of seismic recordings, compounded by even more assumptions; such as increasing temperatures with increasing depth.

 

Fact is, no one really knows what is beneath a thin layer of Earth's crust, including temperature, composition or manner of formation. Those who claim to know are just making assumptions. Will Rogers once wrote: "Most of what we KNOW, ain't true."

 

For example: MODEST writes: I don't think rock (liquid or solid) can float on hydrogen (liquid or metallic). [Not sure what is meant by "float," however, metallic hydrogen would become extremely dense at core pressures.]

 

If earth was formed with 1/2 hydrogen and 1/2 rock, the rock (being more dense) would comprise the center and the hydrogen (being less dense) would comprise the outer layers. [unfortunately, this is another assumption. The physical fact is, within any spinning mass of elements contained within a spinning cloud of particles, the lightest element, hydrogen, will gather in the center.]

 

This is very much like Jupiter and Saturn - and even more like the ice giants Neptune and Uranus. They have substantial amounts of rock and hydrogen where the rock has fallen to the center. [This appears to be another assumption. There are highly qualified researchers who have interpreted the same measurements made in space and claimed Jupiter has 1. a metallic hydrogen core or 2. a smallish rocky core or 3. an iron core or 4. even a core mainly composed of tar. I'm serious, you can find these with Google. There may even be more varied assumptions about the other planets.]

 

You wouldn't expect any of the gas giants or ice giants to have rocky surfaces. [When the Shoemaker comet broke apart and crashed piece-meal into Jupiter, there was visible evidence of large explosions and clouds of black material appeared only over the impact sites. These were visible some time afterward. If Jupiter had no relatively solid surface a short distance beneath the clouds, such violent reactions might not have appeared to be so localized. If Jupiter were largely gas, pieces of the comet should have disappeared into the dense clouds, leaving behind little trace of their passage down to the assumed solid region thought to be far within. This surface impact evidence brings into question the prior assumptions made of Jupiter's composition. Looks like Jupiter may indeed have a rocky surface nearer to its cloud base than has been assumed thru varied interpretations of space exploration results.]

 

You likewise wouldn't expect earth to have liquid and metallic hydrogen in its center. [it is a physical fact that metallic hydrogen can create Earth's magnetic field naturally, without any illogical and more likely impossible spinning of the core under extreme pressures. Where as, a ferromagnetic core, at assumed interior temperatures, cannot create a magnetic field, even if assumed to be spinning at the speed of a snail on a cold day; 2 Km/yr.]

 

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

Therefore, based on the currently observed and physically measured loss of hydrogen into space, I believe this loss proves Earth at least has a reservoir of hydrogen within and Earth's magnetic field is a good indication of a magnetic, metallic hydrogen core.

 

Best regards to all, CharlieO

[modest]

The physical fact is, within any spinning mass of elements contained within a spinning cloud of particles, the lightest element, hydrogen, will gather in the center.

 

What you say is true only if the centrifugal force is greater than the force of gravity. If gravity is stronger than the centrifugal force then denser materials will be drawn to the center. This is obviously the case in planet formation. If the force induced by spinning were greater than the force of gravity then the materials would not coalesce into a planet. They would fly apart.

 

The speed required to ‘escape’ earth’s gravity is 11.2 km/s at earth’s surface. The earth is about 40,000 km in circumference. 40,000/11.2/60 is 59.5 minutes. So, earth would have to have less than a 1 hour day for denser materials near the surface to sink upward and lighter materials to float downward (at the equator). As I pointed out - if earth rotated at the speed needed for this reversal to happen - it would not have formed. Imagine a centrifuge with an upside down test tube.

 

I think we can safely say that when earth formed - heavier stuff sank and lighter stuff floated. This is why the atmosphere is on top of water which is on top of rock which is on top of iron.

 

You really cannot expect rock to float on top of hydrogen.

 

-modest

[freeztar]

Therefore, based on the currently observed and physically measured loss of hydrogen into space, I believe this loss proves Earth at least has a reservoir of hydrogen within and Earth's magnetic field is a good indication of a magnetic, metallic hydrogen core.

 

Charlie,

 

Please explain to me how the measured loss of H2 into space *proves* that Earth has a reservoir of H2 within.

For one so wary of assumptions, I find this absolutism disconcerting.

[Zythryn]

this existing, physical loss of hydrogen from within Earth is significant.

(Emphasis mine)

Charlie, you talk of not accepting assumptions and then appear to make a big one yourself.

The research you quote seems to attempt to measure the amount of Hydrogen escaping the Earth's atmosphere. This is a great start. However, you then jump to the above statement.

Why do you assume all the hydrogen escaping the earth's atmosphere is escaping from the core of the earth?

How much hydrogen is contained in the atmosphere (especially as part of water or other elements)?

You are trying to connect the dots from A to G without stopping at C,D,E and F;)

[CharlieO]

FREEZTAR and ZYTHRYN: Fact is, there is little or NO free hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere, yet a considerable amount can be seen escaping into space every day. If not from within a reservoir within Earth, where might one find another source for where it comes from to escape into space? Some volcanoes have been known to vent enough water vapor [H+O+H] over time to exceed their mass by a factor of 30. Water vapor later is separated by solar photo-disassociation in the stratospher and its hydrogen to escapes into space. Looks like the obvious physical evidence would lead one to believe that hydrogen is coming from some sort of reservoir within Earth.

 

MODEST: With all due respect, what you believe may be true for solid bodies, already formed and static.

 

The physical facts are: In gaseous environments, there is NO gravitational attraction towards the center of the mass when there is no centrifugal force. Molecules simply wander about willy nilly. Think a balloon filled with helium. Gravity is a force between individual masses and can be up, down and sideways. Thus, within a cloud or gas, the separate particles are affected more by the gravitational attraction between the individual particles. This keeps a cloud of gas together, but does NOT cause the individual particles to gravitate to a central location.

 

It is only when the cloud starts to spin does centrifugal force separate them according to their atomic weights. This creates a condensing effect, with the lightest particles gathering in the center; where centrifugal force has the least effect on the particles. One reason why iron is still found in Earth's crust in galactic proportions, with no enormous excess ever being available for Earth's core.

 

Think cream separator. Think uranium gas centrifuge. Think blood plasma separator. Think our Sun, formed largely of hydrogen, which condensed from a galactic cloud of particles to become the center of our solar system. Think the planet Earth, which was assumed by virtually every known scientist during the previous centuries before the Iron Core crowd, to have a hydrogen or light element core. They all considered a light or hydrogen core to be the only physical possibility. Strabo even wrote of this before Christ was born. Others, including myself, are still writing of this.

 

It wasn't until long after Earth's magnetic field was discovered that many, but not all, scientists, ignorant of the properties of metallic hydrogen, assumed Earth had a ferromagnetic core. This led to many, but not all, later scientists and their unquestioning followers to try to explain how a physically illogical event came about in a manner unique from the formation of other planetary bodies. Later scientists have tried hard to justify this illogical assumption with little success, even disputing each other using the same observations. Such as Jupiter having a core of Tar for example.

 

Sorry, but nothing floats inside Earth, nor does anything need to spin inside to create a magnetic field, as if hot iron could. However, centrifugal force is still in evidence today, with Earth still having a bulge around its equator due to its now much slower rotation; which has decreased over time. There are fossil records with growth layers indicating a rotational speed for Earth of 800 days per year. Some scientists claim Earth must have been more disk shaped during that time. Probably even more so when Earth rotated an even faster rate before fossil records came into existence.

 

Logically and physically, Earth's formation was a delicate balance between centrifugal force and gravity. Centrifugal force would have initially separated elements within a eddy within a galactic cloud of particles according to their atomic weights before Proto-Earth became a solid mass and the force of gravity became dominate. Check it out. Please let me know what you find. I don't know everything, but I do believe some 'scientific' assumptions don't always make sense when compared with physical facts. So much of what we KNOW, ain't true.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[modest]

It is only when the cloud starts to spin does centrifugal force separate them according to their atomic weights. This creates a condensing effect, with the lightest particles gathering in the center; where centrifugal force has the least effect on the particles. One reason why iron is still found in Earth's crust in galactic proportions, with no enormous excess ever being available for Earth's core....

 

It wasn't until long after Earth's magnetic field was discovered that many, but not all, scientists, ignorant of the properties of metallic hydrogen, assumed Earth had a ferromagnetic core. This led to many, but not all, later scientists and their unquestioning followers to try to explain how a physically illogical event came about in a manner unique from the formation of other planetary bodies. Later scientists have tried hard to justify this illogical assumption with little success, even disputing each other using the same observations. Such as Jupiter having a core of Tar for example.

 

Sorry, but nothing floats inside Earth

 

These links might be helpful:

 

Planetary differentiation

 

Earth's Early Years: Differentiation

 

There is nothing "illogical" about denser materials congrigating at the center of a massive and gravitational body. You example of Jupiter supports this. It's core (be it rock, metal, tar, ect.) is denser than the hydrogen and helium that surround it. This is true of all planets. Notice the ice giant Neptune:

 

 

 

The deeper layers are denser. This is called differentiation and is the norm.

 

Perhaps there are sources of hydrogen in earth's crust - in particular in its early years. Perhaps we don't need to jump to the conclusion that the entire core is hydrogen and invalidate a lot of scientific research to add the appropriate amount of hydrogen to the atmosphere.

 

-modest

[REASON]

The physical facts are: In gaseous environments, there is NO gravitational attraction towards the center of the mass when there is no centrifugal force. Molecules simply wander about willy nilly. Think a balloon filled with helium. Gravity is a force between individual masses and can be up, down and sideways. Thus, within a cloud or gas, the separate particles are affected more by the gravitational attraction between the individual particles. This keeps a cloud of gas together, but does NOT cause the individual particles to gravitate to a central location.

 

It is only when the cloud starts to spin does centrifugal force separate them according to their atomic weights. This creates a condensing effect, with the lightest particles gathering in the center; where centrifugal force has the least effect on the particles. One reason why iron is still found in Earth's crust in galactic proportions, with no enormous excess ever being available for Earth's core.

 

Think cream separator. Think uranium gas centrifuge. Think blood plasma separator. Think our Sun, formed largely of hydrogen, which condensed from a galactic cloud of particles to become the center of our solar system. Think the planet Earth, which was assumed by virtually every known scientist during the previous centuries before the Iron Core crowd, to have a hydrogen or light element core. They all considered a light or hydrogen core to be the only physical possibility. Strabo even wrote of this before Christ was born. Others, including myself, are still writing of this.

 

Hi Charlie,

 

This has been a very interesting discussion and you have presented some thoughtful arguments for your theories.

 

I have a few quick questions.

 

1. If gravity has no affect on a gaseous mass, what do you suspect makes the cloud start to spin, or condense, as with the formation of the Sun?

 

2. It is easy for us to calculate the gravitational force of the Earth based on its mass. How would a metallic hydrogen core affect the Earth's overall mass compared to what we currently theorize to comprise its core?

 

3. How large would a metallic hydrogen core have to be in order to equal the mass of an implied ferrous core?