Thread: Two possible sources for global warming: Greenhouse gases and the Earth's core. Both could be caused by man.

I believe that the total global warming that is taking place in our surface air temperature and oceans must be from more than one source based on the amount of energy (heat) it would take to increase the temperature of each of these parts of earth. The amount of energy needed to change the surface air temperature is virtually insignificant compared to the energy needed to change our ocean’s temperature which is well diagramed here Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean | Watts Up With That?, although unlike this guy, I do believe the oceans are heating up.
I also believe that greenhouse gases produce radiative forcing that is increasing the surface air temperature of the planet, but I can’t make the leap to equate radiative forcing to the heating up of the oceans too. These guys do The Radiative Forcing of the CO2 Humans Have Put in the Air Equals 1 Million Hiroshima Bombs a Day | ThinkProgress. Gary Novak and I believe that the earth’s core is the source for the ocean temperature increase, EARTH Sciences - by Gary Novak, but Gary goes a step further and thinks the earth’s core is the sole cause of global warming. I was in agreement with Gary until I came across a NASA study that led me to the two source thought process, NASA - NASA Study Goes to Earth's Core for Climate Insights. This in my opinion does not let man off the hook because I believe that man contributes to the increase in temperature of the earth’s core. Over the past hundred years or so, man has moved or molested a lot of earth. Drilling, mining, and excavation in other forms may have reduced the pressure (very slightly) of the earth on its core allowing the temperature to increase to the point where it would be measurably significant in our oceans, having a dramatic effect on our environment. What do you guys think?

I think Earth really do warming up naturally, and I also think we (human) also use soo much energy such that we offset the climate. It's just a bad timing for us. -Maybe we are living in warm phase and our appetite for energy accelerate this warming further.

But we only have live here for thousand of years and the temperature rise is already that fast. It's like nuclear core going critical IMO.

Drilling, mining, and excavation in other forms may have reduced the pressure (very slightly) of the earth on its core allowing the temperature to increase to the point where it would be measurably significant in our oceans, having a dramatic effect on our environment. What do you guys think?

All the mass is remaining on earth, including that turned into gases, so in reality there is absolutely no pressure being relieved.

The surface warming is a pretty simple matter of greenhouses gases being added to the atmosphere, making it more difficult for thermal radation to escape.

But we could shift the pressure to other area by shifting the masses. Like making a dam, or mining, or emptying water reservoir.

The tectonic plate could be already be stressed due to thousand of years of slow grinding, which the rock/sand/stone hold them together stoping further movement. But when the 'stoppage' breaks (like in Japan), it caused an earthquake and the earthquake sent shockwave that pressurize other area, which could cause another earthquake & probably create fissure. -It can also happen artificially, eg: by fracking the rock, or by shifting load from the rocks... this might cause earthquake.

example:
Link between mining and earthquake is acknowledged: Earthquakes and mining - how humans create seismic activity
Link between geothermal drilling and earthquake acknowledged: How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes?: Scientific American

The point is: stuff like mining doesn't just took 1 tonne of material from the area... instead it took gigatonne. That's what we do as human.

example:
Massive underground complex resulted from years of mining: http://www.earth-house.com/html/deep_vaults.html

The shift in mass due to mi9ning, even a big mine, is so small as to have almost no effect. Earthquakes are another thing entirely. Very large ones like Sumatra in 2004 shift enough mass that it changes the rotation speed of the earth by a measurable amount.

The energy is already stored in the rock, released when the rock slipped, and the rock slipped when the material holding it failed, and when that happen it release a gigantuous explosion. We don't need that same amount of energy to cause it, we can just artificially release the stress by inducing a failure in the rocks and causing it to slip.

Earth crust always move, so such stress point always contain energy.

The earth's crust is floating on a fluid ocean of molten iron, which tells us that the pressure on the fluid outer core is not equally proportional on all sides. So adding or removing mass at different points on the surface can redirect or change the pressure on the outer core. This is like stepping on a partially filled balloon. The portion of the balloon where your foot is changes the internal pressure of the balloon, decreasing in some areas and increasing in others. Although the total pressure inside the balloon remains the same the change in location of the pressure along with the energy produced by the change itself can increase the amount of heat inside the balloon, same would apply to the earth's outer core. I know this is a dramatic example and that man has only had a minute effect on shifting mass on the planet but, as msafwan believes, man could cause a chain reaction leading to this effect.

This idea that current warming comes from the earth's core is a bit of a surprise.

There are 173 Climate 'Myths' listed at Skeptical Science Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says and I can't find one that even vaguely relates to it. (Though I've seen it mentioned and rather rudely dismissed in various places at various times.)

The big problem with this idea is what's happened in the last 150 years to make such a huge difference in climate. There've been no changes observed in rates of tectonic or volcanic or similar large scale events linking the earth's core to surface to atmosphere. Unless anyone can point to any published papers from geologists, vulcanologists, seismologists or similar earth scientists showing that there has been such an observed change, then the whole question is moot.

Because there are literally thousands of papers published in mainstream climate science A History of Climate Science .

Remember always. The warming we've seen from long-lived greenhouse gases in the last 30 years was predicted - and calculated - over 100 years ago. A better example of scientific analysis giving testable predictions would be hard to come by.

If you're not happy with these references, spend some time with The Discovery of Global Warming - A History Spencer Weart's history of the topic is not scientifically demanding and sets out the science quite simply and in digestible chapters.

This idea that current warming comes from the earth's core is a bit of a surprise.

There are 173 Climate 'Myths' listed at Skeptical Science Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says and I can't find one that even vaguely relates to it. (Though I've seen it mentioned and rather rudely dismissed in various places at various times.)

I am not a global warming skeptic or denier. I am in complete agreement that man made greenhouse gases cause radiative forcing which heats up the surface air temperature of the planet. What I do not believe is that this same radiative force rains down nearly enough energy (heat) to raise the temperature of our oceans even one tenth of a degree. Such an amount of energy radiating from the outside in, IMO, would burn all surface life, even if it were evenly and proportionately distributed annually for 100 years. An energy source that produces heat which rivals our sun resides at earth's core. The ocean bottom is significantly closer to the fluid outer level of the earth's core than the earth's surface. By having ocean water much closer to a heat source, that is almost equal to the sun, than it is to the sun itself to me is irresponsible to overlook as an actor in ocean and surface air temperatures of our planet.

An energy source that produces heat which rivals our sun resides at earth's core.

I don't know the numbers, but that's what you need.

Regardless of the size of this heat source, how much has it changed in the last 150 years?

If it's been constant or just varying as it always has, it cannot explain heating ........
recent,
current,
continuing,
increasing heating.

If you're interested in ocean heating, this is the most well-known recent paper demonstrating deep ocean heating.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The full text is paywalled, but this is a good overview - Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us - one of the most interesting things in this item is the 'salute' to oceanographers at the end.

For general ocean heating, this is a reasonable introduction. Why ocean heat can Or you can look at the "Basic" version if you prefer something a bit less technical.

Regardless of the size of this heat source, how much has it changed in the last 150 years?

If it's been constant or just varying as it always has, it cannot explain heating ........
recent,
current,
continuing,
increasing heating.

I agree, something had to change over the past 150 years and I explained what I think has changed in previous post:

This in my opinion does not let man off the hook because I believe that man contributes to the increase in temperature of the earth’s core. Over the past hundred years or so, man has moved or molested a lot of earth. Drilling, mining, and excavation in other forms may have reduced the pressure (very slightly) of the earth on its core allowing the temperature to increase to the point where it would be measurably significant in our oceans, having a dramatic effect on our environment.

and

The earth's crust is floating on a fluid ocean of molten iron, which tells us that the pressure on the fluid outer core is not equally proportional on all sides. So adding or removing mass at different points on the surface can redirect or change the pressure on the outer core. This is like stepping on a partially filled balloon. The portion of the balloon where your foot is changes the internal pressure of the balloon, decreasing in some areas and increasing in others. Although the total pressure inside the balloon remains the same the change in location of the pressure along with the energy produced by the change itself can increase the amount of heat inside the balloon, same would apply to the earth's outer core. I know this is a dramatic example and that man has only had a minute effect on shifting mass on the planet but, as msafwan believes, man could cause a chain reaction leading to this effect.

To summarize, if you change the pressure you can change the heat.

If you're interested in ocean heating, this is the most well-known recent paper demonstrating deep ocean heating.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The full text is paywalled, but this is a good overview - Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us - one of the most interesting things in this item is the 'salute' to oceanographers at the end.

For general ocean heating, this is a reasonable introduction. Why ocean heat can Or you can look at the "Basic" version if you prefer something a bit less technical.

Thank you for the papers. Reading through them, although the first doesn't seem to suggest a possible source for the heat, they assume that any heating of the oceans must be from radiative forcing. Although the one that uses the nuclear power plant example seem to contradict itself by doing so. Thanks again and if you have more send them my way. This whole forum is about gaining knowledge.

An energy source that produces heat which rivals our sun resides at earth's core.

Not even close. Total amount of heat from the earth which makes it to the surface is much less than 1% of the surface energy budget.

An energy source that produces heat which rivals our sun resides at earth's core.


Not even close. Total amount of heat from the earth which makes it to the surface is much less than 1% of the surface energy budget.

I agree, rock and earth are great insulators, but has the amount of heat released on the ocean floor from the core been determined? If so what percent of the ocean floors surface energy budget does the core contribute? For the record the estimates for the temperature of the earth's core is almost the same as the estimate for the temperature of the sun.

NO evidence of change to the temperature of the Earth's core, no evidence of change of rate of flow of heat from mantle to crust, no evidence that internal heat of the planet has had any bearing on the current and ongoing exceptional warming of oceans, land and atmosphere. Nor evidence that human activities have had any significant impacts on the planet's internal heat. Drilling new geothermal energy sources would release heat that otherwise would be deep underground but trivial compared to the big impacts of GHG's.

This sounds like one more attempt to find an explanation - any explanation at all - for climate change that undercuts the scientific consensus. Even if not supported by evidence.

I have heard this kind of speculation before as "explaining" rising ocean heat content via undetected undersea volcanoes (also cited as the major source of increased atmospheric CO2 - like a trade of gigatons p.a. of fossil fuels for burning, or a look around at all the smokestacks and exhaust pipes and concrete can't tell us where it's from) . Attribution to the influence of planetary alignments sometimes included.

Understanding the contributions to climate change from natural sources is a well established part of understanding our climate and the heat flux from internal heat hasn't been neglected even if, rightly, the focus of our concerns is on human contributed GHG's.

Out of the Box - "Ocean floor heat flux" in Google scholar gets plenty of results. It's something that was being looked at long before climate became the big issue it is now. Reading the existing scientific literature needs to come before reaching far reaching conclusions about why and how much ocean heat content is changing.

Hi Ken Fabos,

Thanks for joining in. I think if you read the previous post I think you will see that everyone here pretty much agrees that GHGs are the cause of the increase in temperature in the surface air domain in which we live, but the math does not add up for GHGs causing the increase in ocean temperatures. Now I think its the core that is heating our oceans but there could be another explanation. Mathematically I can not make GHGs work.

Thanks for joining in. I think if you read the previous post I think you will see that everyone here pretty much agrees that GHGs are the cause of the increase in temperature in the surface air domain in which we live, but the math does not add up for GHGs causing the increase in ocean temperatures. Now I think its the core that is heating our oceans but there could be another explanation. Mathematically I can not make GHGs work.

Of course it adds up. If you increase the lower atmosphere temperature, you increase the layers beneath it including the atmosphere-ocean boundary and the ocean near the surface. The effect has been successfully modeled for decades.



(moving this to pseudoscience)

There are other possibilities. We know the sun has been going through a warming phase. Is that man's fault? We know that we've had an increased volcanic cycle. Is that man's fault? In fact, if we look back through historical temperature trends, going back thousands of years, we find that an increase in the volcanic cycle is invariably matched with an increase in average temperatures.

I'm not saying that man hasn't had an impact, but if man released absolutely nothing into the atmosphere today, we'd still be heating up. It's not just us and I suspect it's not even primarily us. We're just making it worse.

Cephus, are you familiar with the IPCC report? Those factors are accounted for, yet we are still warming up faster than those alone would produce. Volcanic activity does not produce the kind of CO2 that we do annually, plus more volcanic activity produce particulates which have more complicated effects as well, even though the net might be an increase. Still, these slight increases cannot account for what we are seeing alone.

if man released absolutely nothing into the atmosphere today, we'd still be heating up

Not so. If the concentration of LLGHG (long-lived greenhouse gases) had stayed unchanged at 280-ish ppm pre-industrial levels, we would be moving very, very slowly on a cooling path in accordance with the usual Milankovitch orbital forcings.

As it is, we've put enough llghg into the atmosphere to entirely eliminate the next 'ice age' which we would otherwise have expected in about 10000 years. It's possible that we've knocked off all such glaciations for the next 100000 years, but more work needs to be done on that - and it's also possible that some sense might get knocked into our heads in the meantime and we'll get started on extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Cephus

There are other possibilities. We know the sun has been going through a warming phase. Is that man's fault? We know that we've had an increased volcanic cycle. Is that man's fault? In fact, if we look back through historical temperature trends, going back thousands of years, we find that an increase in the volcanic cycle is invariably matched with an increase in average temperatures.

I'm not saying that man hasn't had an impact, but if man released absolutely nothing into the atmosphere today, we'd still be heating up. It's not just us and I suspect it's not even primarily us. We're just making it worse.

Actually the sun's radiation has been decreasing since about 1980, while CO2 and temperature have both continued to climb. Also volcanic effects usually only last a few years of cooling and don't put out enough greenhouse gasses to change things--even super-volcanoes, that come along every few ten thousand years, don't put out enough greenhouse gases to produce a long term increase in Temp, nor come close to what man puts out in a single year.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Cephus, are you familiar with the IPCC report? Those factors are accounted for, yet we are still warming up faster than those alone would produce. Volcanic activity does not produce the kind of CO2 that we do annually, plus more volcanic activity produce particulates which have more complicated effects as well, even though the net might be an increase. Still, these slight increases cannot account for what we are seeing alone.

You're not listening. I already said man is responsible for *SOME* of the CO2 in the atmosphere to be sure, but not all of it, or even the majority of it. If we eliminated all man-made CO2 emissions entirely, the planet would still be heating up. Yet the global warming freaks claim that it's *ALL* man's fault, that man is to blame for the problem.

It's just not true.

The only people who say that "global warming freaks claim that it's *ALL* man's fault" are those constructing a straw man to argue against. i.e climate change deniers. No reputable scientist would say anything so foolish.

Seventy years ago and inspired by the gyroscopic abilities of a wheel rapidly increasing in rpm, I began a determined attempt to understand the fundamental dynamic nature of that phenomenon we call momentum, and to achieve that aim, then first of I was compelled to shift my endeavour to that of attempting to understand the fundamental dynamic nature of an electron. Thirty two years later I was satisfied that I had a logical understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of an electron complete with all its attributes. As a consequence of that belief, I embarked on a long and futile, frustrating attempt to gain the interest of the academic community leaving me to wonder why there was no response. However, this month I was rudely awakened to that reason because by posting on a thread in this Forum that “gravitation results from the interference to a particle’s gravity by the presence of other matter”, also that gravitation was not synomenous with gravity because they are they are two differing phenomenon’s, I was ridiculed as being an ignoramus when it came to physics.
Now with that warning I am regarded as a crackpot, I will return to the subject of this thread. There is no doubt that CO₂ has a warming effect on the Earth, even so, and considering the rapidity of the growth of the human species and that gas being essential for all flora, it may relatively rapidly be found that there is insufficient to supply the needs of the various animals that we depend upon for our food source and the carbon content of future human bodies, in my opinion, therein lies the main problem for future human welfare.

With regard to the internal heating of the Earth and presently unexplained relatively rapid slight warming and cooling of our oceans, my work requires the existence of a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect that is sensitive to any slight changes enforced by Earth’s ever varying proximity too and direction of motion relative to other bulk bodies; the Sun and Moon being the primary cause and the great Planets being the secondary cause.

To illustrate an unlikely occurrence, then if a high velocity rogue planet came within what astronomers would call grazing distance, we would not only experience a sensation of lightness resulting from the rogue Planet's gravitational interference to Earth’s gravity, we would be fried by the suddenness of and magnitude of the heat generated by the GTE.

To date my work has undergone an upgrade and if anybody would like a copy then please post a reply to that effect. Presently I am attempting to get a direct access reference from the publishers.

You are so deficient in your understanding of physics (and as it turns out, biology...it's plants that use CO2 for metabolism) it's sad.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
You are so deficient in your understanding of physics (and as it turns out, biology...it's plants that use CO2 for metabolism) it's sad.

Yes it is sad when a person such and you know who chooses the option of attack instead of a careful reading of a post. My use of the word flora is a general reference to plants and flowers in this case of usage very obviously pertaining to the flora of the world. Surely because we don’t usually refer to grass and trees as plants (flora) you would not believe that they are of no consequence with regards to human welfare; flowers are especially relevant as in the production of food grain.

With regards to a genuine discussion regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of physics, (not only a mathematical geometric analysis) that has not occurred; all I receive for effort is to be declared stupid or deficient in the knowledge of physics without any explanation except for vague statements that “that does not conform with GR or QM” without any reference to why my statements don’t comply. That type of attack is in my opinion a cover up for a person’s own lack of knowledge. There appears to be a complete lack of interest in the fundamental dynamic nature and the reality of physics except for an almost religious need to defend Gr. In my opinion (yes I know it does not count) GR is a mathematical description that my work provides a parallel conceptual description of; the difference being with the concept of gravitation not being the results of an unbalanced force by declaring that matter is compelled (requiring an unbalanced force to be acting)to follow geodesies.
My paper goes beyond GR by attempting to provide a more full conceptual description of gravity and gravitation that is not presently known and acknowledged by mainstream science; hence I am regarded as a crackpot because it would take a couple of hundreds of posts to explain my work, and there is a refusal to properly read my paper. I keep trying because there must be people somewhere with a genuine interest in basic physics.

By the way, my statement regarding frying in my last post is typified by the constantly reoccurring excessive volcanic activity of Io a moon of Jupiter. That volcanic activity is explained and demanded to occur by my paper under those constantly changing gravitational circumstances. As stated in my paper, all physical phenomena responsible for gravity and gravitation are interconnected and interdependent, when one parameter changes, so do all other parameters.

Originally Posted by GWN

There is no doubt that CO[/SIZE]₂ [SIZE=3]has a warming effect on the Earth, even so, and considering the rapidity of the growth of the human species and that gas being essential for all flora, it may relatively rapidly be found that there is insufficient to supply the needs of the various animals that we depend upon for our food source and the carbon content of future human bodies, in my opinion, therein lies the main problem for future human welfare.

Could you try and clarify this rather jumbled statement? (Which is typical of your stream-of-consciousness writing style)

You seem to be saying that there will not be enough CO2 to grow the plants needed to feed the future human population. Is that correct?

If so there seem to be several things wrong with this. The obvious one that climate change is caused by an increase in CO2 levels so, if anything, there is more available for plants.

Also, even if the levels of CO2 were reduced back to pre-industrial levels (which looks exceedingly unlikely) do you have any evidence that this would be insufficient to support agriculture?

Originally Posted by GWN

{snip snip} all I receive for effort is to be declared stupid or deficient in the knowledge of physics without any explanation except for vague statements that “that does not conform with GR or QM” without any reference to why my statements don’t comply.

Now that is plain dishonest, GWN, and you know it. We have challenged you to produce mathematics that allows one -- anyone -- to compute the consequences of your earth-shattering "theory." And yet, you post long columns of text in response. That is the hallmark of an idealogue. You are the one clinging tightly and desperately to an emotionally-derived certainty that you are correct. You are here to enlighten us poor benighted boobs; I get it. But what you fail to get is that without mathematics, you can't predict the specific outcome of an experiment. Thus, we have no way of testing your idea; an infinity of other equally "reasonable" ideas could produce the same qualitative predictions as yours. Without a quantitative foundation, we can't know if your idea is the one "true" and correct one.

The very fact that you can't respond with math is ipso facto proof that what you have, at its present form of development (despite many decades of effort, as you love to remind us), possesses the same scientific explanatory power as the pink unicorn hypothesis. I don't need to study your book in any more detail than I already have -- no equations = no theory. It really is that simple, despite your bleats. It's not a position derived from some ideological attachment to {insert list of mainstream theories here}. It's the simple, logical result of comparing actual theories that have held up under withering attack, to your rambling collection of hypotheses and empty declarations of what "reality really is."

No math = no theory.

Come back and enlighten us after you have an actual theory. We're not just going to take your word for it, however irritating that is to you. Argument by authority doesn't fly.

Get it?

Sometimes i read through a thread and am left wondering why some people take advantage of their educational opportunities and other people decide it is more fun being dumb.

Then, rather than explaining in detail why certain posters are "not even wrong", I find it more rewarding to do this.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Sometimes i read through a thread and am left wondering why some people take advantage of their educational opportunities and other people decide it is more fun being dumb.

Then, rather than explaining in detail why certain posters are "not even wrong", I find it more rewarding to do this.

Because it feels so good when you stop.

Originally Posted by tk421

- no equations = no theory. It really is that simple, despite your bleats.

Hi tk421,

The above referenced equation is not correct. A theory is a observational explanation. One or several hypothesis (test methods) are formed that will either validate or invalidate a theory. If a theory is never invalidated then it can be considered a fact. No equation is needed to formulate a theory.

To all who reads this post, please try to refrain from ridicule, degradation or belittlement of your fellow site participates. Please try and make this an atmosphere of learning, ideas, and productive debate. Who knows what life altering ideas that could be proposed or inspired on this site, but only if people feel comfortable expressing their ideas.

Also to all: Please try to make your thoughts and ideas as clear as possible. I think all are more interested in ideas than vocabulary. I find after reading my own post that many times I was not clear in my question and I would get responses to a question I did not mean to ask.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

The above referenced equation is not correct.

Seems reasonable to me.

A theory is a observational explanation.

A scientific theory is a lot more than that.

One or several hypothesis (test methods) are formed that will either validate or invalidate a theory.

How do you test a hyopthesis if it can't make a prediction? How can it make a quantified, measurable prediction without math.

How do you test a "theory" that says:
"waffle waffle will cause heating"
"How much heating?"
"waffle waffle"
"How can we measure it?"
"waffle waffle"
How can we distinguish it from other effects?"
"waffle waffle"

No testable theory there. (And in case your not sure, that is pretty much all that GWN has.)

If a theory is never invalidated then it can be considered a fact.

No. It can be considered a good theory. For now.

No equation is needed to formulate a theory.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I am sorry, I was wrong with my definitions, but I still say that no equation is needed to formulate a theory. Here are definitions I found:

HypothesisA hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Strange, If you had carefully read my posts of the 30^th and 31^st August there would be no need for your question.The flora is needed to feed the animals that we humans consume as a food source as well as the vegetables we require to survive. Presently we are very wasteful creatures with regards to world resources and there is a need for change. Yes to your statement regarding the present atmospheric content of CO₂ and presently hothouse growers of vegetables are now adding additional CO₂ to their hothouse atmosphere to produce at a faster rate. Now regarded as a pollutant, CO₂ will become a much required asset, and a valuable by-product of energy generation. At the beginning of the 20^th century the human population reached one billion, at the end of that century we numbered more than six billion. You get my meaning regarding the future wellbeing of humanity if you extrapolate that 5 to one increase ability to the end of the next century; just a blink of an eye time-wise. Presently, millions of people exist slightly above starvation conditions.

tk421, your post of 31st August is fallacious as is evidenced from a reading of all other threads of my posts and those of others including yours. In that regard, you choose to have a very convenient memory. Upon reading how to access my work, you went through the process of viewing it and then scrolled rapidly through it looking for pages containing the maths you were seeking. Upon not finding any maths, you compiled a relatively lengthy post condemning the work. All achieved from beginning to end in 26 minutes. My reply to you regarding your conduct towards a lifetime of work was a statement of fact and far from a bleat. Your conduct was more morally reprehensible than that of a plagiarist. Had you even skim read the work, you would have found quantative statements derived from arithmetic; such as providing the difference between gravitational acceleration of a kilogram mass and that of the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass; in other words, the difference between gravitational induced acceleration and that of induced acceleration resulting from an unbalanced force originating from without the system

Hello again John Galt.
Your post of the 1^st September was ambiguous and may have been a comment of overall frustration. However, if it was directed to my posts then I will happily quit because I have long since given up ever receiving a genuine physical rebuttal of my work, or an interesting challenge regarding the realities of the fundamental dynamic nature of physics. Strange has previously supplied some constructive criticism regarding the imagination required to understand the vitally relevant concept near the beginning of my work. In response, I have completed a rewrite and have provided a description of that unmeasurable concept by the use of the measured background radiation. The paper is now accessible from the updates section of the General Science Journal. I only continue with the hope that somebody with a genuine interest in the fundamental dynamic side of physics will declare their interest and join in a constructive debate.Regarding the Pioneer 10 anomalous slowing, I provided an attempted answer to your question.

Yes to your statement regarding the present atmospheric content of CO₂ and presently hothouse growers of vegetables are now adding additional CO₂ to their hothouse atmosphere to produce at a faster rate. Now regarded as a pollutant, CO₂ will become a much required asset, and a valuable by-product of energy generation. At the beginning of the 20^th century the human population reached one billion, at the end of that century we numbered more than six billion. You get my meaning regarding the future wellbeing of humanity if you extrapolate that 5 to one increase ability to the end of the next century; just a blink of an eye time-wise. Presently, millions of people exist slightly above starvation conditions.

CO2 is not now, and is unlikely ever to be, a limiting factor in plant growth anywhere in the world. The reason hothouse plant growers use CO2 supplementation is that they control light, moisture and nutrients. When they choose to increase nitrogen, phosphorus and other necessary growth enhancers, they also enhance CO2 to maximise photosynthesis because of increased growth rate generally. They do this to avoid the problems posed by Liebig's law of the minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In open field crop growth, the law of the minimum makes water/drought, phosphorus, nitrogen the critical growth limiters. Remember that all the plants we call crops evolved in conditions where CO2 concentration was up to 280 parts per million. The concentration now is over 394 ppm.

The biggest effect this concentration has on crops is to make temperature, drought and flood the biggest indirect effects of increased CO2 because of its direct effect of retaining energy in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by GWN

[FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Strange, If you had carefully read my posts of the 30^th and 31^st[SIZE=3] August there would be no need for your question.

I write professionally. I know that if my target audience fails to understand something I write, then it is my fault not theirs.

This attitude seems quite common among proponents of "personal" theories.

"If you read what I wrote you will understand it" - no matter how badly written it is.
"If you only understood what I was saying, you would see I was right" - no matter how nonsensical it is.

I suppose it goes along with the assumption that their theory is correct and everyone else is wrong.

"If you could only work out the math of my theory for me, you could help prove it and share my Nobel prize"

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Good grief. How do you think people come up with hypotheses and theories. Do you think someone said, "you know what, I bet it could have been a meteor" and everyone else just nodded wisely and accepted it?

The effect of a large meteor hitting the atmosphere was calculated; the effects of the blast and the sediments were analysed. Mathematics and modelling was, inevitably, used for this.

I get the impressions sometimes that some people think that Einstein one day just said, "Hey guys, you know what, I bet spacetime is, like, totally curved man" and everyone else just went, "wow, that is utterly bodacious, it must be right."

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Good grief. How do you think people come up with hypotheses and theories. Do you think someone said, "you know what, I bet it could have been a meteor" and everyone else just nodded wisely and accepted it?

The effect of a large meteor hitting the atmosphere was calculated; the effects of the blast and the sediments were analysed. Mathematics and modelling was, inevitably, used for this.

I get the impressions sometimes that some people think that Einstein one day just said, "Hey guys, you know what, I bet spacetime is, like, totally curved man" and everyone else just went, "wow, that is utterly bodacious, it must be right."

The statement provided by Out of the box regarding the mysterious explosion in Siberia was a statement of fact and there was no ambiguity attached to it. Unlike your above statement there was no evidence of surface impact. The only conclusion I can think of is a high velocity vertical intrusion into our atmosphere of a body of ice. The ice changing directly to super-heated steam that and due to its momentum, impacted the epicentre and whilst spreading and expanding, knocked all those trees down.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by GWN

[FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Strange, If you had carefully read my posts of the 30^th and 31^st[SIZE=3] August there would be no need for your question.

I write professionally. I know that if my target audience fails to understand something I write, then it is my fault not theirs.

This attitude seems quite common among proponents of "personal" theories.

"If you read what I wrote you will understand it" - no matter how badly written it is.
"If you only understood what I was saying, you would see I was right" - no matter how nonsensical it is.

I suppose it goes along with the assumption that their theory is correct and everyone else is wrong.

"If you could only work out the math of my theory for me, you could help prove it and share my Nobel prize"

It is not professional writing, only a reasonable reading that was required.

I never claimed my work to have the status of a theory nor did I claim it to be beyond falsification.

The late and much revered Professors Newton and Einstein have provided most of the required mathematics, it is the conceptual ideas that need to be eventually evaluated.

Originally Posted by GWN

The statement provided by Out of the box regarding the mysterious explosion in Siberia was a statement of fact and there was no ambiguity attached to it.

I didn't deny it was a fact, not did I say there was any ambiguity. I was merely challenging his claim that no math was required to develop and support the theory of a meteor as the cause.

Unlike your above statement there was no evidence of surface impact.

And I didn't say there was a surface impact:

Originally Posted by Me

The effect of a large meteor hitting the atmosphere was calculated ...

The only conclusion I can think of is a high velocity vertical intrusion into our atmosphere of a body of ice. The water changing to super-heated steam that and due to its momentum, impacted the epicentre and whilst spreading and expanding, knocked all those trees down.

Do you have any data or calculation to support the idea it was ice? Have you calculated the size of this "body of ice"? Have you calculated what difference there would be between a piece of ice that size and a piece of rock?

As we can safely assume that the answer to all of those is "no", we can safely discard your suggestion as idle speculation. And stick with the current best theory which is supported by modelling, data and mathematics.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between science and a fevered imagination.

Hello to you adelady.

I have read your reference to Liebig’s law and must confess that law was unknown to me. In regard to the need to supply plants with nutriment in quantities required by the plants and the correct acidity of the soil is well known.

With regards to the value of CO₂ to plants in hothouses, I was quoting from memory of a documentary that gave the impression that the extra CO₂ force-fed the plants with that necessary gas in proportion with their accelerated growth. I am quite sure that we will all have our own ideas concerning the effect of all sorts of that which is necessary for human welfare, especially when and relative to the Earth’s ecology to support ever growing numbers of humans. Relatively rapidly there will be a need to introduce restrictions to the ever increasing population.

My original reference to CO₂ and increasing human population was to indicate that we have other pressing problems. Also, CO₂ is a useful and necessary gas whereas the other now ignored noxious gasses from vehicular exhausts are presently much more harmful to human health in our cities.

Yes to your statement concerning the discomforts from excess evaporation causing floods. That is one of the limiting factors concerning the capacity of the Earth to sustain ever increasing numbers of humans, because floods destroy or severely reduce the yield from crops.

Originally Posted by GWN

My original reference to CO₂ and increasing human population was to indicate that we have other pressing problems.

We do have other problems. However, the rapidly rising levels of CO2 are among those presenting the greatest danger, and that are most difficult to solve.

Also, CO₂ is a useful and necessary gas whereas the other now ignored noxious gasses from vehicular exhausts are presently much more harmful to human health in our cities.

CO2 is useful and necessary, but an increased amount is not more useful or even necessarily beneficial. And other components of noxious gasses are not being ignored. Stricter and stricter limits are being put on them in almost all parts of the world.

Relatively rapidly there will be a need to introduce restrictions to the ever increasing population.

Population is already restricting itself. If you watch this TED presentation through to the end you'll see why the already restricted birthrate (average 2 per woman worldwide) will inevitably lead to a population of 10 billion.

Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com

I believe Rosling's right on the numbers and the underlying logic - except .... I also think we've put the climate so far out of agricultural whack that we can't avoid major famines starting around the middle of this century. And I'm not talking a few or ten million people dying. I'm talking more than that, much more. Which will put Rosling's calculations right out. Because we'll lose a lot of people, and that itself will cause an increase in birthrates at different intervals and in different places, much as he talks about the influence of violence increasing birthrates in a few countries at the moment.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Good grief. How do you think people come up with hypotheses and theories. Do you think someone said, "you know what, I bet it could have been a meteor" and everyone else just nodded wisely and accepted it?

The effect of a large meteor hitting the atmosphere was calculated; the effects of the blast and the sediments were analysed. Mathematics and modelling was, inevitably, used for this."

Strange. From a reading of your most resent post, it would appear that I misunderstood your meaning of that stated above. Your use of the words meteor and sediments were the reason for my statement because no trace of a stone or metal type meteor sediments* was found to allow an analysis of them or provide evidence of a meteor being the cause of the explosion. The lack of evidence created the mystery.

*Resulting from such an explosive occurrence that obviously impacted the epicentre, any sediment would also have impacted through that area.

Although and based on the evidence gathered, I suggested that a meteor composed of ice may have been involved, that does not require that I intend or am about to become further involved except to state the following; The ridiculous argument based on the idea that mathematics is the be all and end all of physics can be challenged by the fact that all page after page of mathematics is inevitably followed by a summery that depends on conceptual explanations and quantities resulting from the mathematics being obtained by the application thereto of arithmetic. In my paper arithmetic was used to arrive at statement involving quantities.

With regards to that explosion, my paper provids the reason why ice can be expected to produce such an explosion given the circumstances involved.

Thank you adelady for such an informative and civilised debate as evidenced by your posts.
I agree with your statement that there are already controls being applied to population growth as evidenced by the Chinese restrictions etceteras. Even so, the environmental, religious and political parameters extant last century (two world wars and other wars and viruses etceteras) did not prevent a 5 to 1 increase in population.

The forecast regarding a large loss of life as stated in your final paragraph would eventually become a certainty if world authorities don’t form a more Uniting of Nations to replace the totally incapacitated present assembly. The UN does not have the political ability to reach the conclusions and so take the action so necessary to prevent personal political or religious ambitions from taking precedence over that of human welfare. We have evolved from family groups to tribes and to Nations. We will for a long time to come remain Nations. However, it is vital that the interest of all humankind take precedence by a planning for the future being undertaken by the most qualified, and not as now by those who can gain authority by being able to influence the most people.

If we now return to the subject of this thread and the affect of CO₂ on climate; I will state as follows: For the last 34 years, I have lived in the southern hemisphere on a mainly tree covered property at an altitude of slightly more than 2000 feet above sea level and the climate is regarded as tropical. The first part of that time we experienced gradually decreasing rainfall relative to that considered normal and during the summers we had trouble keeping our lawn grass alive. We had mild winters. The last part of that time, we have had summers gradually becoming milder and the rainfall has gradually increased. The winters have been progressively colder. Our trees and surrounding pastures were lush and emerald green indicating that they were happily removing larger quantities of CO₂ from the atmosphere. This year we had an exceptionally milder summer due to cloud cover and most of the surrounding pastures are now burnt from the frost resulting from the coldest winter we have experienced in the 34 years living here. The above appears to indicate that the extra evaporation causes extra cloud cover and so a cooling affect. The thermostatic effect of our great oceans act to regulate more effeciently than now credited.

Originally Posted by GWN

The ridiculous argument based on the idea that mathematics is the be all and end all of physics

Strawman. No one ever said it was the be all and end all. But, as you will have understood from your other thread, it is impossible to produce a quantitative and testable hypothesis without using mathematics.

Strange, how do you define a theory? A hypothesis? A law? This will allow for a basis for debate. Right now we seem to be going in circles.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by GWN

The ridiculous argument based on the idea that mathematics is the be all and end all of physics

Strawman. No one ever said it was the be all and end all. But, as you will have understood from your other thread, it is impossible to produce a quantitative and testable hypothesis without using mathematics.

Strange, I completely agree with your above statement.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Strange, how do you define a theory? A hypothesis? A law? This will allow for a basis for debate. Right now we seem to be going in circles.

I'm sure one could argue about details of your definitions (e.g. I am not crazy about "educated guess") but they are probably "good enough".

All I am saying is that a (scientific) theory needs to be tested quantitatively (how well did the detergent remove the stain, what percentage of those surveyed thought it was better, what are the error bounds on these figures, etc).

You cannot have a theory which is unsupported by mathematics.

You cannot have a theory which is unsupported by mathematics.

That is where we disagree. It would be an unsupported theory but a theory non-the less.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

You cannot have a theory which is unsupported by mathematics.

That is where we disagree. It would be an unsupported theory but a theory non-the less.

By your own definition, a theory cannot be "unsupported". It is a tested hypothesis. How do you test a hypothesis that just makes vague qualitative statements?

And if it isn't testable, then it isn't even a hypothesis. Because it doesn't have the attributes needed to become a theory.

It just say that "some of the Earth's heat is absorbed by the sea"; why is that soo difficult to acknowledge? Since Earth's heat always flow away from the core thru the Earth's crust; that's why everything below 15 meters get hotter and hotter, and so why can't it flow into the sea too?- Why can't "sea absorb some of Earth's heat" even be a possibility???

Originally Posted by msafwan

It just say that "some of the Earth's heat is absorbed by the sea"; why is that soo difficult to acknowledge? Since Earth's heat always flow away from the core thru the Earth's crust; that's why everything below 15 meters get hotter and hotter, and so why can't it flow into the sea too?- Why can't "sea absorb some of Earth's heat" even be a possibility???

Is anyone denying that? You got it right, but the amounts are trivially small compared to the solar surface heating heat exchange driven by it's temp/salinity differences through the world's oceans.

I recall from my student days that the total heat transmitted from the interior of the Earth in the course of the year would be sufficient to melt a layer of ice less tnat one centimetre thick. As LF points out this is trivial compared with solar input.

The temperature of the Earth's core is about 75-80% of the Sun's temperature. There is about 93 million miles of space between the Earth and the Sun and the Sun radiates heat in all directions of space, meaning only a very small fraction of the heat radiated from the Sun reaches the earth. Meanwhile, the Earth's core which also radiates heat in all directions has 100% of its heat radiated reaching the Earth and is about 3000 miles away from the Earth's crust. A crude comparison would be having a pot of water on the burner of a stove set to 500 degrees and having another heat source 11 feet above the pot radiating heat at 625 degrees and stating the heat source radiating from above is having a significantly greater effect in heating the water than the stove burner. I do not have an equation for it but solar radiation as the source of ocean temperature increase doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

I do not have an equation for it but solar radiation as the source of ocean temperature increase doesn't add up.

You fail to see the irony in that, I assume?

"I don't understand it but it must be wrong."

I don't understand, why can't "the ocean absorb the energy of solar radiation"??? solar radiation is extremely powerful; for example: in equator region it fuel the intense heat and power ocean current and create powerful hurricane, while in the north and south (where sun only shine at an angle) the environment quickly turn to ice. -Solar radiation is extremely significant energy source to our planet, it should easily be able to heat up the ocean too...

Solar radiation is extremely significant energy source to our planet, it should easily be able to heat up the ocean too...

What many people overlook is that solar radiation penetrates much further into water than it does into solid land surfaces. So water absorbs much more radiation than the land surfaces - and the ocean covers 70% of the planet's surface in the first place. The graphic here illustrates the relative heating neatly.

Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science: Total Heat Content (2011 update)

OK. Anyone who wants to get on top of this ocean heating stuff should follow up the references (there's quite a few) from these 2 items.

Deep ocean measurements. Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
Other ocean measurements. Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?

Originally Posted by Strange

"I don't understand it but it must be wrong."

Why? One should never assume that the accepted explanation is the correct one. Science is not a majority rule system. I am not saying that my reasoning is correct but I would like a rational explanation as to why it is not.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Originally Posted by Strange

"I don't understand it but it must be wrong."

I am not saying that my reasoning is correct but I would like a rational explanation as to why it is not.

It disagrees with observation. We have measured the heat flow through the crust of the Earth in many places. There is insufficient heat to deliver the effects you are claiming. ((I have already pointed this out to you.) Refer to this paper: http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~rob...son_RG1993.pdf

And please, let that be the end of this. You are mistaken. The data show you are mistaken. Stop wasting your time and ours.

Added note: Your statement, "One shoud never assume that the accepted explanation is the correct one." is both ignorant and offensive. I am not basing my rejection of your proposal because I assume the accepted explanation is true. I accept the standard explanation because I have looked at the raw data; I have done the caluclations; I have satisfied myself that the standard explanation is more viable and more plausible than any alternative so far offered. And I don't take kindly to being told that I have just assumed it is true.

a rational explanation as to why it is not.

It's all in the numbers. In particular, the numbers written alongside the y axis.



And note especially. Those numbers are anomalies, not measured totals. I've not been able to find reliable sources for gross totals to compare with energy emitted from the earth's core. (Equally there is no source anywhere showing that heat emitted from the core has measurably changed in the last 50 years, 100 years, any relevant period at all. And that, after all, is the crucial issue if you want to explain warming of the last few decades.)

As an aside, a substantial proportion of the heat being conveyed from the interior comes not from the core, but from the heat generated by radioactive decay of elements in the mantle.

Originally Posted by John Galt

It disagrees with observation. We have measured the heat flow through the crust of the Earth in many places. There is insufficient heat to deliver the effects you are claiming. ((I have already pointed this out to you.) Refer to this paper: http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~rob...son_RG1993.pdf

And please, let that be the end of this. You are mistaken. The data show you are mistaken. Stop wasting your time and ours.

Added note: Your statement, "One shoud never assume that the accepted explanation is the correct one." is both ignorant and offensive. I am not basing my rejection of your proposal because I assume the accepted explanation is true. I accept the standard explanation because I have looked at the raw data; I have done the caluclations; I have satisfied myself that the standard explanation is more viable and more plausible than any alternative so far offered. And I don't take kindly to being told that I have just assumed it is true.

I am sorry Mr. Galt. I did not intend to offend. My comment was a direct reply to Strange's comment about not understanding but knowing it to be wrong. I still stick by my statement saying that one should never assume that the accepted explanation is the correct one. The statement is meant to be a philosophy not an accusation. That being said, how is pursuing answers or explanation to any questions on this forum a waste of time. If it is wasting your time then why do you reply when you are not obligated. What is the purpose of this forum?

That being said, how is pursuing answers or explanation to any questions on this forum a waste of time.

Pursuing answers and explanations based on finding science-based evidence, observations and measurements is the right thing to do. Protesting that we should never assume that the accepted explanation is correct is a step too far.

When the accepted explanation is the result of the aggregate work of thousands of scientists over a century or more, the correct procedure is to accept their conclusions until and unless you find observations that contradict it or you have a better explanation for the well-known data.

Scepticism is the correct scientific approach. Unrelenting, universal doubt is not.

It was once the prevailing scientifically accepted belief that the Earth was flat, that the Sun and all other planetary bodies revolved around the Earth and that garbage could spontaneously become rats. If no one questioned the validity of this science, progress would not have been made.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

I still stick by my statement saying that one should never assume that the accepted explanation is the correct one.

And my point remains that this is not how science is conducted. Science does not assume. Posters here, whose approach you have challenged, do not assume. What they do is to accept that the conclusions are valid when extensive research, over decades or more has led to those conclusions and when no significant challenges to those conclusions have arisen and when no observations contradict those conclusions and when no theoretical issues call the conclusions into question. There are no assumptions in that process. You are attacking a mindset and a methodology that are not being followed.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

The statement is meant to be a philosophy not an accusation.

But it is a philosophy that is aimed at something that is not happening, except in your misinterpretation of what is going on.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

That being said, how is pursuing answers or explanation to any questions on this forum a waste of time.

When you persistently refuse to listen, when you misunderstand what is going on, when you prefer your ill-informed viewpoint over those who have an education on the topic, when you combine all of these things and do so despite all atempts to dissaude you then further discussion becomes a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

If it is wasting your time then why do you reply when you are not obligated.

Up until this point I hoped that you would see sense. I now doubt that possibility. However, I hope by making a last explanation of where you are wrong that more open-minded readers of the thread will benefit.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

What is the purpose of this forum?

It is to discuss scientific matters. It is not to flagrantly persist in loose logic, close minded thinking, lack of scientific discipline and promotion of patently erroneous beliefs.

Both John Galt and Adelady present evidence by referencing studies of oceanic temperature trends, the core and radioactive decay's effect on the surface temperature, and the amount of heat absorbed by our oceans. I do not argue with the evidence (data) that they present. A mentor of mine always told me that " The data is always telling you something". The data presented did not have an explanation as to the why. Why does the core and radioactive decay have such a minute effect on the surface temperature? John, I know you hate this word being applied to science but, an assumption was made that solar energy was the source that increased the amount of heat being absorbed by our oceans. There was no measurement or quantitation of the solar energy, it was just rationalized that the heat could only come from the sun probably based on the analysis of the data showing the effect of the core on surface temperature. Now, do you consider my earlier rationale, which I represented below, illogical?

The temperature of the Earth's core is about 75-80% of the Sun's temperature. There is about 93 million miles of space between the Earth and the Sun and the Sun radiates heat in all directions of space, meaning only a very small fraction of the heat radiated from the Sun reaches the earth. Meanwhile, the Earth's core which also radiates heat in all directions has 100% of its heat radiated reaching the Earth and is about 3000 miles away from the Earth's crust. A crude comparison would be having a pot of water on the burner of a stove set to 500 degrees and having another heat source 11 feet above the pot radiating heat at 625 degrees and stating the heat source radiating from above is having a significantly greater effect in heating the water than the stove burner. I do not have an equation for it but solar radiation as the source of ocean temperature increase doesn't add up.

If so, why? If not, then we explore the reasons why the expectations from this rationale does not match the observed and measured data.

Why does the core and radioactive decay have such a minute effect on the surface temperature?

Nothing at planetary scale has a 'minute effect'. Planetary phenomena are the result of the pluses and minuses of gigantic numbers - which is one reason why we talk about warming and cooling forces in terms of watts per square metre. Much easier for most of us to comprehend.

But the combination of radioactive decay and the convection of the molten core are constant - at least by human time perceptions. Anything which has remained unaltered for the last century or so is just not a candidate as an explanatory mechanism for something which is changing steadily, increasingly, rapidly - like surface temperature.

And especially when we have another, better, explanation which not only explains surface and ocean warming but also explains why the temperature at the top of the atmosphere is decreasing. We haven't mentioned it in this discussion so far, but that's one of the 'fingerprints' of warming by greenhouse gases. The temperature at TOA is decreasing because the larger concentration of ghg's absorbs some of the radiation which would otherwise get through to heat those higher levels of the atmosphere. If you need a better explanation for this mechanism, just say so. There a few good ones around.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

The temperature of the Earth's core is about 75-80% of the Sun's temperature. There is about 93 million miles of space between the Earth and the Sun and the Sun radiates heat in all directions of space, meaning only a very small fraction of the heat radiated from the Sun reaches the earth. Meanwhile, the Earth's core which also radiates heat in all directions has 100% of its heat radiated reaching the Earth and is about 3000 miles away from the Earth's crust. A crude comparison would be having a pot of water on the burner of a stove set to 500 degrees and having another heat source 11 feet above the pot radiating heat at 625 degrees and stating the heat source radiating from above is having a significantly greater effect in heating the water than the stove burner. I do not have an equation for it but solar radiation as the source of ocean temperature increase doesn't add up.

If so, why? If not, then we explore the reasons why the expectations from this rationale does not match the observed and measured data.

Even before we discuss how the earth's core and the sun affects the temperature of the oceans, consider that the oceans have existed as it has for a very long time, yet remains at close to constant temperature. That means that with a constant supply of heat from the interior over a long period, that system is in close equilibrium, i.e. the core does no longer raise the temperature of the oceans. So, for the interior to now be responsible for the current warming trend we see, the core would suddenly have to start producing more heat, which there is no evidence or even mechanism for. Instead, we have the very real issue of an increase in a primary climate forcing greenhouse gas due to human activity. This can heat up the oceans and does.

Thanks, but I understand how ghg's can cause TOA cooling. If you read through all of the post you will see that I have never denied the effects of GHG's on the increase of surface air temperature. My conflict has always been with ocean heating. 4x10^24th joules of heat (over a billion nuclear bomb explosions) is needed to raise the ocean temperature one degree. Can it be explained as to how such heat is raining down through our atmosphere and upon our planet surface without destroying all surface life?

Originally Posted by Out of the box

My conflict has always been with ocean heating. 4x10^24th joules of heat (over a billion nuclear bomb explosions) is needed to raise the ocean temperature one degree. Can it be explained as to how such heat is raining down through our atmosphere and upon our planet surface without destroying all surface life?

Firstly, consider the time frame involved.

In order to raise ocean temperature one degree, the heat would have to be infused all at once and constantly, otherwise any gradual energy gains would be lost into the atmosphere before the 4x10^24th joules needed could be amassed.

ops

otherwise any gradual energy gains would be lost into the atmosphere before the 4x10^24th joules needed could be amassed.

That would only hold for cases where the gradual energy gains were not attributable to the atmosphere itself becoming gradually less and less able to radiate that heat away to space - as in accumulating long-lived greenhouse gases.

Originally Posted by adelady

otherwise any gradual energy gains would be lost into the atmosphere before the 4x10^24th joules needed could be amassed.

That would only hold for cases where the gradual energy gains were not attributable to the atmosphere itself becoming gradually less and less able to radiate that heat away to space - as in accumulating long-lived greenhouse gases.

In my opinion once ghg,s gets to a point where heat no longer can rise into the atmosphere life will no longer exist.

once ghg,s gets to a point where heat no longer can rise into the atmosphere life will no longer exist.

Maybe. Life as we know it may cease to exist if we "reset" the atmosphere at a much higher temperature for hundreds of thousands of years.

But Earth isn't set up for the kind of runaway warming that wrecked Venus. ('Wrecked' as in changed it out of all resemblance to Earth.)

Out of the box, I can understand your insistence concerning our lack of knowledge regarding the heating and transferring of heat energy from the oceans. In that regard you are not alone because those whom study that subject have admitted that the reason for the long-time persistence of the Earth’s internal heat source is unknown. The radioactive disintegration of unstable matter does not supply near enough thermal energy to provide an acceptable answer as to why the Earth’s core has not long since cooled. There are ideas proposed but none are deemed to be the correct answer. We are very efficient at making instruments and using them along with mathematics to make measurements, but lag a long way behind that ability to know the correct physical reasons underling and supporting those measurements of the magnitude of phenomena.Our technology has far outpaced our ability to explain the physical fundamentals on which our technology is based.

because those whom study that subject have admitted that the reason for the long-time persistence of the Earth’s internal heat source is unknown.

This is not an area I've looked at previously. However, I did find this 20 year old paper which has 652 citations (more than 30 per year for 20 years!) so it looks to be a reasonable starting point for someone who is interested. Surprisingly enough, I didn't hit the citations link to look through those papers as well. http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~rob...son_RG1993.pdf

The most striking feature is the sheer size of the numbers involved - partly because we're talking geo-physics, so they blithely talk about 180 million years here, tens of millions of years there. Most importantly, I don't see any doubts or caveats about "the long-time persistence of the Earth's internal heat source" nor along the lines of expecting the core to have "long since cooled".

If you have any articles or papers to cite that express such reservations that would be handy. Looking through 650+ papers vaguely looking for such qualified statements is not a chore anyone would relish. Far better to start with the real deal and track the sources more directly.

Originally Posted by adelady

Thttp://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~rob...son_RG1993.pdf

I read through the study referenced above for a second time, and it got me a thinkin. The heat flow data for the oceans and the continents cited in this study is all end point data. The data estimates the amount of heat originating in the earth's core that escapes into the atmosphere. The measured data is post filtration. As this massive amount of heat travels via convection it is being filtered by the medium it is traveling through, so much so that by the time it reaches the surface very little is left to be released into the atmosphere. If such measurements were somehow taken in process at various stages of the heat travel, I believe in the early stages in our oceans you would find the amount of energy necessary to manipulate ocean temperatures. I am just speculating. I do not believe it is yet possible to do in process testing of core heat flow.

We know the coldest water is at ocean bottom, so obviously there is not massive heat flux. On land, deep boreholes give is accurate measurement of heatflow. It's just not that mysterious, and there is no massive pulse of heat rising from below.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

We know the coldest water is at ocean bottom, so obviously there is not massive heat flux. On land, deep boreholes give is accurate measurement of heatflow. It's just not that mysterious, and there is no massive pulse of heat rising from below.

Then where does the energy go? Does an energy source that produces temperatures at 80% of the sun, store that energy in its core? I am being led to believe that earth's interior must be significantly cooler than I was taught. Literally a cold day in hell.

Then where does the energy go?

Not very far. Not very fast.

According to wiki the Earth's interior cools at the rate of approximately 100 degrees C per billion years.

Two things I suggest you might be overlooking. Pressure. The massive pressures at various levels within the Earth's structure contributes to maintaining high temperatures regardless of any other physical influences.

Insulation. Most of the rocks, clays and soils in the Earth's crust are pretty poor conductors of heat. And most of the surface of that crust is also covered/insulated by 10s or 100s or 1000s of metres of ocean waters.

Apart from those regions mentioned in the paper I referred to earlier, where the oceanic crust is thinned by spreading, there's not much scope for energy to escape.

Originally Posted by adelady

Then where does the energy go?

Not very far. Not very fast.

According to wiki the Earth's interior cools at the rate of approximately 100 degrees C per billion years.

Two things I suggest you might be overlooking. Pressure. The massive pressures at various levels within the Earth's structure contributes to maintaining high temperatures regardless of any other physical influences.

Insulation. Most of the rocks, clays and soils in the Earth's crust are pretty poor conductors of heat. And most of the surface of that crust is also covered/insulated by 10s or 100s or 1000s of metres of ocean waters.

Apart from those regions mentioned in the paper I referred to earlier, where the oceanic crust is thinned by spreading, there's not much scope for energy to escape.

Thanks Adelady. I really liked your answer, and I agree that pressure is a key stabilizer for core temperature. If their is a slight increase in core temperature, I would speculate that it was due to a loss in pressure. Salt is a pretty good conductor of heat and the salinity of the earth's crust and oceans are high, just sayin. How did a cool surface form around a molten iron core? I will look that up!

Originally Posted by Out of the box

How did a cool surface form around a molten iron core? I will look that up!

I got it. Its like the ash layer that forms on top of charcoal. Makes sense, but as the core is cooling, why is their a solid iron core in the center with the liquid iron surrounding it? Based on the cooling pattern that formed the earth's crust, I would expect it to continue to solidify from the outside inward. Although the solid core is supposed to be a product of core cooling, the temperature of the solid core is said to be greater than that of the molten iron. Is this due to gravity, density, pressure or something else?

Originally Posted by Out of the box

... why is their a solid iron core in the center with the liquid iron surrounding it? Based on the cooling pattern that formed the earth's crust, I would expect it to continue to solidify from the outside inward. Although the solid core is supposed to be a product of core cooling, the temperature of the solid core is said to be greater than that of the molten iron. Is this due to gravity, density, pressure or something else?

You might find the answer here: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~sue/TJA_...eismo_2069.pdf

The state of a material depends on both temperature and pressure. As pressure increases, the melting point tends to increase, too. A helpful mnemonic is to imagine that a higher pressure tends to push atoms closer together (making a solid more so), so that a higher temperature is needed to cause melting.

Originally Posted by tk421

You might find the answer here: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~sue/TJA_...eismo_2069.pdf

The state of a material depends on both temperature and pressure. As pressure increases, the melting point tends to increase, too. A helpful mnemonic is to imagine that a higher pressure tends to push atoms closer together (making a solid more so), so that a higher temperature is needed to cause melting.

Thanks tk421. After reading I still could not answer why the solid core is at a higher temperature than the molten core. I am not saying the answer is not there, just that I am not smart enough to find it within the paper.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

[Thanks tk421. After reading I still could not answer why the solid core is at a higher temperature than the molten core. I am not saying the answer is not there, just that I am not smart enough to find it within the paper.

You switched questions mid-stream. The answer I provided earlier was in response to your earlier question about why the core could be solid, even though it was at a higher temperature. Again, the answer is that the core is under higher pressure. Both temperature and pressure matter (with the core as with other materials, like water).

So now you are asking a different question: Why is the solid core at a higher temperature than the outer liquid core? First, it's important to keep in mind that we have no direct measurements of temperature or pressure that far below the surface. These parameters are inferred from things like seismic data, probable material properties, etc. In consequence, the error bars are somewhat large.

That warning aside, a higher core temperature can be produced by several mechanisms, including residual heat left over from the formation of the earth and friction arising from denser material descending to the core. Heat from radioactive decay is likely a contributor as well, but models for that are even less certain at this point (distributions, types and amounts of isotopes are known to only crude error bounds).

A new, but related, train of thought. Why do we focus all of our resources, time, and money trying to control, manipulate and reduce the second most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? WATER is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. There is on average 60 times more water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, so even if man were to double or even triple that amount it would have very little effect in its contribution to global warming compared to the 2-3% of water vapor in our atmosphere. I was blindly following the CO2 reduction propaganda (which is so unlike me) when I decided to look up the definition for greenhouse gas. Within the definition there was a ranking of the GHGs in our atmosphere and water was number one. This changes my whole way of thinking. Obviously we can't reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere, and if we tried I think it would result in apocalyptic doom. The hydrogen fuel cell would cause more pollution than the internal combustion engine. Who knew water was a pollutant? I always tried not to pollute the water. OK, my "woe is me" moment is over. Anyway I will relate this to the heating of the oceans from the core in my next post.

CO2 is a climate forcing gas, while Water vapour is a climate feedback gas.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by KALSTER

CO2 is a climate forcing gas, while Water vapour is a climate feedback gas.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both CO2 and H2O are forcing gases (greenhouse gases = forcing gases). The Wikipedia reference basically differentiates the two based on the water cycle but CO2 has a cycle of its own (the CO2 cycle is much slower than the water cycle). If it wasn't for the speed of the water cycle it would all be water vapor.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Originally Posted by KALSTER

CO2 is a climate forcing gas, while Water vapour is a climate feedback gas.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both CO2 and H2O are forcing gases (greenhouse gases = forcing gases). The Wikipedia reference basically differentiates the two based on the water cycle but CO2 has a cycle of its own (the CO2 cycle is much slower than the water cycle). If it wasn't for the speed of the water cycle it would all be water vapor.

No they aren't. You don't understand the distinction. Greenhouse gasses are not all climate forcing gasses. There is a clear distinction made in climate science overall, not just in Wikipedia. The link explains it. Did you read it?

"The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2.[54] Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming"

Originally Posted by KALSTER

No they aren't. You don't understand the distinction. Greenhouse gasses are not all climate forcing gasses. There is a clear distinction made in climate science overall, not just in Wikipedia. The link explains it. Did you read it?

"The average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days, compared to years or centuries for other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and CO2.[54] Thus, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming"

Yes, I read it, and here is what it told me: Due to the water cycle, water at the gaseous stage of the cycle stays in the atmosphere for about 9 days before returning to liquid form only to be replaced by the next batch of gaseous water, hence the cycle . Other GHGs, such as CO2,and methane, cycle much slower or not at all. Therefore they stay in the atmosphere for much longer periods of time but at a low concentration compared to water. Since atmospheric warming increases the amount of water vapor in the air, the more warming caused by GHGs like CO2, and H2O (I don't know why the author did not include the very water that is causing the positive feedback loop in with the other GHGs that started the warming) the more water vapor. So thank God for rain or the earth would be quite a different place probably without humans.

On that same webpage it gives a good definition for greenhouse gases:

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.^[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Water, both absorbs and emits radiation and is the most abundant molecule in our atmosphere that has this effect. The greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. It is necessary so that the earth can maintain the right temperature to support life.

Originally Posted by Out of the box

Yes, I read it, and here is what it told me: Due to the water cycle, water at the gaseous stage of the cycle stays in the atmosphere for about 9 days before returning to liquid form only to be replaced by the next batch of gaseous water, hence the cycle . Other GHGs, such as CO2,and methane, cycle much slower or not at all. Therefore they stay in the atmosphere for much longer periods of time but at a low concentration compared to water. Since atmospheric warming increases the amount of water vapor in the air, the more warming caused by GHGs like CO2, and H2O (I don't know why the author did not include the very water that is causing the positive feedback loop in with the other GHGs that started the warming) the more water vapor.

Because water vapour is not a forcing agent. Without the CO2 and other forcing agents, water vapour would be lower. Left on its own, it would precipitate back down. Ultimately CO2 and other forcing agents are to blame for the feedback loop.

Water, both absorbs and emits radiation and is the most abundant molecule in our atmosphere that has this effect. The greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. It is necessary so that the earth can maintain the right temperature to support life.

I never said water vapour does not absorb and emit infra red. It is a greenhouse gas after all. The thing is that it is not a forcing agent, which is why we don't focus on it much. The greenhouse effect is essential to our survival, of course and nobody contests that, but too much of it can cause big problems for us, since we humans have developed around how the atmosphere and water level is today. That is why the current focus is on anthropogenic CO2 (and other forcing agents), because we are screwing ourselves.

[QUOTE=KALSTER;350168]Because water vapour is not a forcing agent. Without the CO2 and other forcing agents, water vapour would be lower. Left on its own, it would precipitate back down. Ultimately CO2 and other forcing agents are to blame for the feedback loop.


Let's get into the same frame of mind. How do you define forcing? It was not defined in the Wikipedia page referenced. The definitions I have seen in the past basically equated it to the greenhouse effect.