this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
87 points (97.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35584 readers
1522 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If water flowing over continents in rivers is what concentrates salt in our ocean, would a planet that has always been covered in water just be freshwater? The water is just sitting there, not eroding through salts.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 12 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

There is salt in the earth.

Salt dissolves in water.

If earth was covered completely in water, there would be even more salt in it.

[–] TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 15 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Water and salts are a package deal. If you have a planet with one, you’re going to have all the others as well, because they all come from an exploding star.

When a star goes supernova, it creates oxygen, which can later combine with hydrogen to make water. That very same supernova also makes sodium, potassium, magnesium, chlorine, sulfur etc. so you end up with all the elements for making a bunch of different salts. Ask physicists why supernova does this sort of packaging.

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The presence of sodium and chlorine on the planet makes sense to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's dissolved in the water. I think the key understanding is if the water cycle is the key component of dissolving salt in water, or if the much less dramatic erosion on the bottom of the ocean is sufficient to make the water notably salty.

So far the best answer I've got is that water in comets and otherwise outside the planet might actually be something like salty, so maybe freshwater is just a temporary aberration of the water cycle.

At the same time, we know there are some processes that remove salt from oceans (e.g. the salt formations at the bottom of the Dead Sea), so in the end I think it would come down to where that balance of salt in vs salt out. It's not totally clear to me that without the continental influx of salt from rivers, that that balance would result in something like freshwater or saltwater. This thread has highlighted several factors that come in on both sides, so it may be something we won't know until we've explored more planets.

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

According to NOAA, the ocean was originally not very salty but became saltier over time as rivers eroded the land and delivered the dissolved minerals to the ocean. At the same time, salts crystallize out of the water and are deposited on the ocean floor. This input and output are now more or less balanced so the ocean is not getting saltier. Apparently, this salt cycle involves about 4 billion tons of new dissolved salts being added to the ocean each year and about the same amount being deposited from the water to the ocean bottom.

So, why aren't rivers salty? Apparently, it is because rivers carry only a small amount of salt and are kept fresh by constant rainfall, whereas the ocean has been accumulating salt for the last 4 billion years.

Lakes that don't drain to the ocean, like the Dead Sea, can get salty over time, just like the ocean.

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Oh man! The fact that our current ocean isn't getting more salty implies that the addition by rivers is very significant to the total saltiness of the ocean! Over billions of years with no rivers, the ocean must get significantly fresher! Wow! That is strong confirmation that an entirely ocean world would at least be significantly less salty!

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 74 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even fresh water has stuff dissolved in it, just in lesser amounts. Pure water isn't a naturally occurring thing that lasts long. There are two components, water's polarity which grabs things that are available, and how water in a large system that is getting energy isn't going to stay still and "sit there".

Something interesting I learned the other day in following the recent launch of the Europa Clipper. One of the things they want to explore is how as Europa moves through the huge magnetic field of Jupiter it induces a magnetic field of its own. Why is this relevant? It's one bit of evidence that the waters under the ice have salts dissolved in them, giving them conductivity to produce this field. So even there water is not "fresh".

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

That is super interesting! I hope the Clipper gives us a definitive answer!

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

The reason water is concentrated in oceans isn't specifically due to continents existing. Salt doesn't evaporate so all rain is fresh water. That fresh water falls. When it falls over land it flows to the lowest point it can go. This leads to all flowing water flowing towards oceans and seas. Salt won't travel upstream. Ergo salt simply stays in oceans and seas.

Now consider a world with no land. This wouldn't really differ from a single ocean on earth. Currents and waves will move in all directions at some point which should mix the salt all around. You could get some differences if there were ice caps or icebergs. Those could behave similarly to continents depending on size.

[–] somebodysomewhere@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Enceladus, a moon of Saturn is actually mostly water, but salt has been found in volcanic emissions ejected into space.

That said it's not impossible that conditions exist somewhere in the universe where you have H2O and no NaCl since that is the salt we usually mean when we talk about salt water. Unfortunately it is not the only thing found to be mixing with water as on Jupiter, liquid water does exist but it mixes with amonia.

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I feel like I'd rather drink saltwater before I drink water with ammonia dissolved in it.

[–] ctkatz@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

probably not.

unless the planet is water all the way down, I don't think it's possible to have life or even submerged landmasses that don't have the chemical elements that can create salts. dead things would dissolve in the water and chemicals in rocks will leach into water over time.

now if this water planet is far enough away from the sun to freeze, sure. the frozen ice should be all fresh. I'm not aware of any salts that stay in frozen water ice. the stuff underneath the frozen stuff most definitely will be salty.

not a chemist or chemistry major but I'm using the word "salts" deliberately. there's more types of salt than NaCl.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If salts were present when the water froze, the salts would still be there. If the ice is pure water but you can't microscopically brush away all the salts during thawing, can fresh water be extracted?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

In freeze desalination, the initial ice crystals before it freezes solid are pure water; you mostly freeze a volume of saltwater into slush, strain out the ice, and discard the liquid (which will be brine; higher in salt than your initial water).

Probably not super efficient, and probably needs multiple steps, but I dunno. Somewhere where the ambient temperature is below freezing, but geothermal is available, it could work at scale, but if you have to refrigerate, you're probably better off with regular distillation

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It depends on the composition of the planet. If it is just a massive ball of water floating in space then it will be whatever purity that is, plus whatever space dust and impactors bring in.

If it is basically a terrestrial planet with water on top, say earth plus a lot of water, then it would be salty. The thing with salt water is contact between the water and rock. If there is sufficient heat it will circulate, so salty water from the bottom of the ocean may be heated by magma or similar and then it will be less dense, floating upwards to the surface. Along the way it will mix and cool, leading to dispersal of the dissolved salts.

The only way I can imagine a planet with a solid subsurface completely coated in freshwater would be if the planet snowballed hard, no radioactive materials left in the core making heat, no significant tidal pull on the core, and then after reaching a very cold temperature having slow addition of clean water from comets. That said, comets are dirty, they have lots of stuff, so you would need somehow clean comets. Still, at that point once sufficient water has hit the surface it could form a thick enough layer over the salty ocean below and start to melt, maybe from greenhouse effects. As soon as it runs away and keeps heating enough it will start to melt the core ice though, so you could have a short lived window in that freak occurrence but it will be very temporary and not at all likely.

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks for all the detail! Your observation about comets is really pertinent. Saltwater is probably itself a purer form of water than comets. Maybe an ocean planet is actually more like a muddy swamp of nasty dirty water than a lake.

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Well it depends too on how long things take to settle out. Salt is easily suspended in water, but silt is not, so the water would be salty but not muddy. The water would also probably have lots of photosynthetic bacteria/algae in it, so you would probably have blooms of green, blue, red, and brown all over. Those blooms would uptake light and carbon through that process then as they died drop the content down the long water column. All sorts of feeding below that would create a full eecological web. If there were deep sea vents, volcanic activity breaking through the sea floor, you would have a second source of energy and chemistry at the bottom. That said, the over level of life at the surface would be limited by things like iron, phosphorus, copper, and so on. Any heavier ions would be less available at the surface because there is no surface erosion bringing them in at the top so as they are bound up in dead algae they will drop to the floor.

The rate limiting at the sea floor will be based on energy but not too bad, you would likely see a lot of diverse life around vents and it would have a fairly large complexity over time. That said, the depth would make for less complex life due to the lack of light and associated vision. Some things would make light but it would be dangerous to make and would not be super common.

Another interesting consideration is the geography of the sea floor. Would there be fault lines? If there are continental plates but way under the ocean they would still have movement, so subduction and so on would play out, so you would probably have chains of vents along the diverging or merging plate boundaries. Life would spread along these lines, so life would be closely related at nearby vents but distant over the surface of the planet. I would anticipate a fairly heterogeneous population over the surface of the planet in the deep, but far less so at the surface.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Disclaimer: Not an expert.

Thoughts: I think this would largely depend on multiple factors, such as the overall composition of the planet, a hypothetically almost perfectly spherical core underneath the water, and not having a moon to shift the water tides around.

And even then, solar gravitational tides are a thing, so the water would most likely still move. Also, I'm pretty sure there's no perfectly spherical planet, so I assume there would still be some sort of underwater erosion going on.

All speculation though.

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was trying to figure out how much underwater erosion there is but if you compare the sandy and silty bottom of the ocean to like, Utah, it seems like continental erosion is orders of magnitude more significant.

Conversely, we know oceans deposit all sorts of stuff at their bottoms, which makes me think there is a small amount of salt being deposited. Would that cancel out significant underwater erosion?

Similarly, if underwater erosion was a big deal, wouldn't old lakes (in geological time) be notably saltier than young lakes? But the only salty lakes we have primarily lose all their water through evaporation, basically ultra concentrated river water.

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There’s also heat exchange so you’ll have deep sea vents where there could be all kinds of caustic stuff and/or minerals.

So it wouldn’t necessarily be fresh even if that stuff wasn’t saline

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For those following along: SEAWATER IS NOT SALINE EITHER. Just making sure we're clear on everything

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was thinking of the term salinity.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Hahaha I figured something like but couldn't resist the opportunity :D

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

It's all fresh if you adapt.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 10 points 1 day ago

I think it would largely depend on whether or not there are any moons causing tidal forces.

[–] tupalos@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Why wouldn’t it all best just considered salt water then?

[–] shonn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fresh water is because of rain and snow. You get fresh lakes and rivers because rain and snow melt washes any salt and minerals out into the ocean. If you didn't have land as a buffer, the rain would just fall into the salty ocean.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Very true, but I think the root of their question is: if there was no land above the surface, would the oceans be salty to begin with?

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Exactly. If a planet ever had a salty ocean, adding more water probably wouldn't dilute it in any meaningful way, so it would need to be a planet that never had continents.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Overall composition of a planet is what would matter, not whether there is land. If there is salt on the planet, it would almost assuredly have salty oceans. Salt diffuses in water. If you put salt into a glass of water and leave it sit, eventually the salt would dissolve and mix completely. Salt water has a different density than water. The act of dissolving involves energy changes. These create small eddies and currents that would mix the water until it was in equilibrium. If there is salt in any form on your waterworld, the only way it wouldn't be salty is if the salt was permanently separated from the water physically.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Continents and the surface are just areas of the planet that don't have water covering them up.

If Earth's oceans rose only a few miles up, it would be a water planet, but these things would still exist. Including plate tectonics and the circulation of magma / molten core.

Water circulates due to pressure, temperature, and impurities, each having their own positive feedback loop into the system before it finds a balance.

[–] HotDayBreeze@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure but once a continental plate is flooded, isn't it by definition an oceanic plate at that point? A continent only exists if it isn't flooded.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I mean, it's basically arguing semantics, which was my point. Temperature, sediment, etc. transfer will still occur, and erosion will happen. It would just happen at different time scales.