You’ve probably heard it before: the geothermal heat flux is so small (91.6 mW/m²) that it can be effectively ignored in Earth’s energy budget. The first part is true, the heat flux is small, but this fact is completely irrelevant. And what is relevant is popularly denied and masked as something else.
I’ve already explained the problem here and here. Unfortunately not everyone understood the point I was trying to make, so I made a visualization:
CF (Conductive Flux) is the Geothermal Heat Flux, EF is the Emergent Geothermal Flux, Th and Tc are the temperatures of the hot side and cold side. d is depth. Compatibility with my previous terminology: CF = CHF and EF = CSR.
As you can see all of these profiles have the same geothermal heat flux (CF), and all of them produce a very different emergent flux (EF) out of the surface. The popularly stated geothermal heat flux is NOT a value that you can compare to insolation. The value itself gives you NO clue as to what can emerge at the top. Anyone telling you otherwise is stupid or lying.
The geothermal heat flux and the thermal conductivity factor determines the temperature gradient. A gradient can never tell you either what kinetic energy is at the bottom or the top. Never.
So what really emerges at the top on Earth? In this visualization, the closest answer is ~5°C or ~340 W/m² – what was calculated and observed here and here. ~340 W/m² is what is claimed for the total greenhouse gas backradiation effect, as shown in the “official” energy budget here. That’s not surprising, because the greenhouse gas effect is secretly just geothermal flipped upside down. It’s the biggest scam in climate science, and you heard it here first.
Geothermal provides a tremendous amount of energy, even more than the sun, but climate scientists ignore it because they are looking at a component of a gradient/slope measure, rather than the temperature (kinetic energy) it delivers to the surface.
I invite everyone to give this some serious thought and not just dismiss it using sophistry.
Love, -Zoe
Extra
- Geothermal Heat Flux (CF) is a very useful value for commercial geothermal energy prospectors, but not for atmospheric scientists creating an energy budget. EF is what they need to use. They do use it, but they flip it upside down and call it GHE.
- The temperature gradient value used is 27.5 °C/km, which I got from here: “it is about 25–30 °C/km”. This makes k = 0.333 W/(m*K).
Zoe's Insights 
Great explanation. Thanks Zoe !
LikeLiked by 1 person
“… because the greenhouse gas effect is just geothermal flipped upside down.”
Boom …
Man, this is gonna trigger Cognitive Dissonance to the point of cognitive epilepsy Zoe.
Well done indeed.
Would you cover the permafrost that is deeper than 10m?
An exploration of the atmosheric warming effect of cloud cover deep into antarctic winters (when the effect of the sun is essentally absent) would perhaps be interesting too, as it suggests that geothermal is very significant indeed. I know you deal with surface T but nonetheless it might be illustrative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A whole map is provided here:
https://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/
Many think that this latitude distribution means it can’t be geothermal. This is false.
The geotherm is simply more oblate than the surface of the Earth. This is a result of hot magma rotating inside a semi-hard shell. The centripetal force causes a geothermal bulge.
What this means is that there is more distance to the same temperature at the poles than the equator. Thus causing a latitudinal distribution.
LikeLike
I have done a graph in a single constant scale showing the earth + atmosphere temperature profile all together, and the first thing that comes to mind is “how the heck is it possible that (almost) no one is considering geothermal”…I would post it here but I don’t think it’s possible. And then you Zoe are way better than me at doing these things 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scientist (Satire):
”
The geothermal heat flux is small. Don’t need to look into it further than that.
I don’t care that my feet are burning on a hot plate. A gradient/slope measure is small! My feet must be burning due to the sun and atmosphere. It has to be this way because an irrelevant measure is small.”
Climate scientists are pack animals and their god is Fourier, the geothermal denier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Zoe, I’d love to say that I’m comprehending your work in a way that I can repeat it in conversation but unfortunately I just can’t. The time it takes to absorb and comprehend, within context, the terminology is proving too difficult for a part-time reader with my ability. I was closer a few months ago (sigh)… In any event, I intuitively see that you’re onto something important, and I comprehend from a macro viewpoint just not enough to raise it in conversation. But I’ll continue my attempt. Question: are there any scientists that have embraced your ‘GHGT is really geothermal flipped theory’? Also, I recall John O’Sullivan stating in some thread on Principia Scientific that he would publish your work when you were ready to do so – has anything come of that? regards, Nicky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Nicky.
No, no one with a bigger audience has embraced my ideas. John might help, but I see he hasn’t accepted it himself. So what’s the point?
The idea is simple. The planets are not complete slaves to the sun. They have their own thermal energy. The sun adds to it, creating the surface temperatures we observe. Fourier was a geothermal denier; he claimed the extra warming came from the atmosphere. Since he said it, it must be true. All climate scientists uncritically followed him.
The idea is easy to understand but responding to all the silly sophistic objections you will receive, is indeed very difficult. Their premises are false, but they don’t know that.
I haven’t yet seen anyone defend my ideas in detail, but some have managed to summarize it briefly.
Thank you for the support. I really appreciate it.
How can I make this material easier to understand?
LikeLike
Hi Zoe, honestly there’s nothing wrong with your explanation – it lays in my comprehension and ability to articulate. Regarding John O’Sullivan accepting your theory; does he need to? I got the impression he would publish it regardless? If this was the case, I would encourage you to submit something irrespective of his current opinion. If it were submitted then he would be forced to ponder it more closely, and then perhaps it would resonate. In any case, keep up the great work. You’re inspiring. Nicky
LikeLike
–The idea is simple. The planets are not complete slaves to the sun. They have their own thermal energy. The sun adds to it, creating the surface temperatures we observe. Fourier was a geothermal denier; he claimed the extra warming came from the atmosphere. Since he said it, it must be true. All climate scientists uncritically followed him.–
Problem with that idea, is: “it’s the sun stupid”.
A lot of opposition to “global warming” is idea that climate is related to solar activity.
Let’s make list of ideas:
No, wait let’s start with who:
“The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Richard Lindzen et al. in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s atmosphere.”
Richard Lindzen is the most hated “denier”. Though believes CO2 has or could some warming effect.
He the devil to global warming believers- they will flee in panic.
[A lot people in his camp} We can put Willis Eschenbach in that camp, WUWT also. Most people].
ideas:
sunspots related to climate. Willis Eschenbach is against.
But WUWT posts a lot about that.
I think Sunspot related weather. Lots people believe global climate is addition or sum of weather effects- and
might include Richard Lindzen. And put “global warming” believers in that camp.
I would say weather is only thing studied, really in term of global climate.
And weather is actually important.
Also who is published a lot at WUWT: Willis Eschenbach and Roy Spencer and WUWT started
on the topic bad measurement of Surface Air temperature.
Anthony Watts whole life related to topic of weather.
And most opposition to global warming religion is from professionals on topic meteorology.
But funny thing I ever heard about topic was from oceanographer- but mostly it’s meteorologists.
You can’t say it’s “not about sun” to meteorologists.
Connected sunspots is the varying intensity of our variable star, which effect the amount GCR reaching
Earth, which effects cloud formation, but also just more or less sunlight.
Oh, also a lot people are just mad that the global warming religion has tried to erase the Little Ice Age
from history- so the Hockey Stick graph. Hide the decline. And Climategate.
Big player on that is Climate Audit. which mainly, Steve McIntyre. Steve McIntyre and team destroyed
the hockey stick, and killing field was in US congress.
If want criticism {and you should- if vaguely interested in science} give it to Steve McIntyre who to punch holes it.
And you will can published after that, globally. Or give to anyone who professional statistician, which Steve is.
Main thing I say about Steve, is seems trustworthy and obsessive.
WUWT will publish anything Steve peer reviews.
I think will end with that. Oh, website
https://climateaudit.org/
LikeLike
‘Problem with that idea, is: “it’s the sun stupid”.’
Well, it IS the sun. Or rather it is the sun as well. Zoe shows that geothermal can not be neglected, which I for my part have had a problem with for years (thank you Zoe). That does not cancel out variations in the sun. It does not cancel out Lindzen’s Iris effect. It has nothing to do with Mann’s fantasy figures and wishful thinking. All your listing is valid.
The present state of the earth is a result of so MANY factors, never just one. For what I know, there can even be some ‘back-radiation’. Living far up north, a clear winter night is far sharper and colder than a cloudy one, but what is cause and what is effect. I don’t know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“a clear winter night is far sharper and colder than a cloudy one, but what is cause and what is effect. I don’t know.”
It’s warmth that allows clouds to form and prevents them from raining/snowing out 🙂
But they need clouds to create a greenhouse-type effect, so they lie about the correlation of clouds to warmth.
“geothermal can not be neglected”
Ah, so refreshing when the plain truth is seen, right?
LikeLike
‘How can I make this material easier to understand?’
I am not sure I can post an image here, but had an image like the one used in Wikipedia in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core#/media/File:Earth_poster.svg
Just look at it. All that heat set to zero? Haa….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember that the interior of the Earth shown is just theoretical. I have the far-out opinion that Earth’s core is non-regular matter. I propose that it’s this strong gravitational interaction which is varying, thereby increasing mantle convection. This is a novel mechanism for increasing geothermal heating of the crust.
LikeLike
–That’s not surprising, because the greenhouse gas effect is secretly just geothermal flipped upside down. It’s the biggest scam in climate science, and you heard it here first.–
What you seem to be saying is that the greenhouse gas effect can be replaced with a geothermal effect.
From my prospective greenhouse gas effect is small I don’t think greenhouse gases warm by 33 K, and you seem to say it’s non-existence. Which I think is possible.
Or as example I think a doubling of CO2 causes 0 to .5 C increase upon surface air temperature. And you seem to be saying a doubling is closer to 0 C.
But I also claim that surface air temperature doesn’t warm the ocean, and how cold or warm the ocean is what determines global climate temperature.
And I think that being on water planet is important element in terms of our global temperature.
And geothermal heat is important element of keeping ocean warm.
But wouldn’t have considered that Geothermal heat is an important element in keeping land areas warm- in terms of surface air land temperature.
I think whole theory that determines greenhouse gases causes 33 K is wrong- is pseudo science.
The numerous authors said they could not determine any other warming effect other greenhouse gases.
I would say the sheer mass of N2 and O2 gases of 10 tons per square meter of the atmosphere is one or a warming effect.
Many claim clouds are warming effect- some have claimed that as much 50% of warming effect of greenhouse
gases is due to clouds- general idea about clouds is depends “type” of clouds, or roughly high elevation clouds are regarded as cooling effect and lower elevation clouds are warming effect
So it seems your point what causing the increase of 33 K is not greenhouse gases, but rather geothermal heat.
And roughly I think the +33 K is based first simple and wrong model indicating Earth have average temperature of -18 C without 33 C warming effect.
And I think what determine global climate is the temperature of the ocean. Or I would say geothermal energy is a significant factor mainly because it warms the ocean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mass can’t cause temperature increase. Temperature is a function of mass and VELOCITY. If the atmosphere fell there would be a ONE time warm up.
It’s because of geothermal and solar that there is VELOCITY in atmospheric mass.
Greenhouse effect theory is wrong, and so is N&Z pressure theory.
The Earth is an infrared star, and it ALONE is capable of providing a habitable environment for humans between -40 and 40 latitude.
The only thing CO2 can do is change the lapse rate. CO2 does effect the temperature at 2 meters above surface, but it is extremely tiny, less than 0.01C.
LikeLike
Why only 2 meters?
LikeLike
Everywhere above, but there’s a focus on ~2 meters above, since that’s where all the “surface” thermometers are.
LikeLike
“Mass can’t cause temperature increase. Temperature is a function of mass and VELOCITY. If the atmosphere fell there would be a ONE time warm up.”
Yes. And you agreeing with what I saying about the warmer surface air {global average surface air temperature of 15 C- and actually, an average of 17 C in terms surface air over the ocean areas] does warm the 3,5 C average temperature of the ocean.
But I speaking to people who assume global surface air temperature is Earth’s average temperature and I am saying Earth average temperature is 3.5 C.
So we have the pseudo science of Earth average temperature is 15 C, and pressure “idea” is likewise imagining Earth average temperature is 15 C. More mass will increase the temperature of surface air- and doesn’t warm the ocean. So more mass does increase temperature of surface temperature, but also decreases the mount of sunlight which reaches the ocean surface {which is what warms the world and gives us the average surface air temperature of 15 C. And average air temperature of 15 C, is first of all, cold. Second it’s an “illusion” air surface temperature is 15 C- because tropical surface ocean temperature is 26 C and it’s 40% of the surface of ocean and roughly the world.
And in most of this vast region no one living in. Some in terms of religious idiots of global warming, they living in cooler surface air temperature than 15 C. And all them, are educated to know they are living in an Ice Age. Which important issue considering where they live. Not very important if living in near or in the tropics. If living in southern California a glacial period means you can’t grow oranges {but most of fanatics are living where you can not grow oranges-or other tropical plants.
So surface air temperature is in the middle of two heat gradients, atmosphere and ocean- surface air and surface ocean. Maximum ocean surface is about 35 C and Maximum ground surface is about 70 C. Ocean surface is same as ocean surface air temperature. Land ground temperature is quite different surface air temperature- the highest recorded {which is correctly measured} surface air temperature is “56.7 °C (134.1 °F) in Furnace Creek Ranch, California,…on 10 July 1913. {{And you should get higher air temperature with lower global average temperature- don’t make mistake it’s disproves global warming.}} Of course can make the sun warm more than 70 C and increase air temperature higher than 56.7 °C.
Roll window up in car and be warmer part of clear sky day.
And in nature one can warmer air temperature, and this related to pressure or as I would say gradients.
And it was in glacial period and when the Mediterranean Sea dried up and it’s called, Messinian salinity crisis.
Wiki, Messinian salinity crisis:
“Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 °C (18 °F) per kilometer, the maximum possible temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 °C (72 °F) warmer than it would be at sea level. Under this extreme assumption, maxima would be near 80 °C (176 °F) at the lowest points of the dry abyssal plain, permitting no permanent life but extremophiles. ”
And that is surface air temperature {ground surface would close to 80 C also- it’s not really heating by sunlight in basin floor, it’s heated ground temperature at a higher elevation [region surrounding Mediterranean Sea basin]
And how I would say Venus is hot on it’s rocky surface {which gets almost no sunlight], and would say Venus surface is it’s clouds which about 50 km higher than rocky surface of Venus.
“Temperature is a function of mass and VELOCITY. If the atmosphere fell there would be a ONE time warm up.”
Right, and average air velocity at Venus cloud level is the same as the dense atmosphere at rocky surface.
Or air molecule are travelling at about 400- 500 m/s.
Or roughly same air average velocity as on Earth.
LikeLike
Btw, everyone know about this lapse rate or gradient of temperature- and there is no need of “new theory”.
Though the religious global warming fanatic are clueless, as are all fanatics.
And hardly the only area where pseudo science is rampant.
Racism is also pseudo science- I say that, because it’s even more obvious- or known by
everyone.
Over population is also pseudo science, and endless etc. Soft sciences, a mushy word
for pseudo science.
Modeling is useful, but doesn’t predict future. And we currently have quite a degree of
fanatical belief on these somewhat useful China virus models. Not mention the often corrupt and
inaccurate election polling.
But ocean thing is new. And we need this theory- but I wouldn’t call it quite done yet.
But then again, science is really never done.
Nor is religion, politics, or philosophy.
I am more interested in philosophy and other arts.
Like mechanical arts of invention- which have always
used cutting edge science. And interested in exploration- which drives science.
I am interested Moon and Mars- and have been interested in terraforming Mars.
Which I think can be quite simple and cheap.
LikeLike
Getting to other part:
–Greenhouse effect theory is wrong, and so is N&Z pressure theory.–
Sure. But craziness probably as some unknowable value.
One can it in surplus, Einstein considered it an ever increasing value. I don’t imagine Einstein
was overly depressed by it- it can be irritating- and it seems to be related to it’s value {perhaps, unfortunately}.
I believe human mind is better than super computer, could be. And that include the minds of all crazies-
includes every one. And includes dumb animals like dolphins- and the other smarter meat eaters.
–The Earth is an infrared star, and it ALONE is capable of providing a habitable environment for humans between -40 and 40 latitude.–
In terms of “perhaps” mindless/random evolution.
The human is technological creature- as are other animals.
There some merit to idea that Earth is a prison- it’s hard to leave.
If you can leave the planet, one will be a starfaring civilization. An important aspect of starfaring in the term term is using large telescopes.
So if we can get off Earth we can built vast telescopes.
Currently we using what call large telescopes to explore the beginning time. And would do more of that with the much larger telescope.
But we also look at closer targets.
One thing has been underfunded and though increased, still underfunded is looking for space rocks which will at upset us if they hit earth. Any solar system in universe will have billions of such space rocks. Such number of rocks everywhere, should be part of variable of Fermi paradox- known simply, as where are the aliens?
We can live off world. It’s would be easy. We already be off world, if we explored space, instead focusing
things like NASA making rockets. Governments imagining they can make rockets and imagining they can mine things
in space, has been a foolishness sought- and still is being foolishly seeked.
But it might be changing.
–The only thing CO2 can do is change the lapse rate. CO2 does effect the temperature at 2 meters above surface, but it is extremely tiny, less than 0.01C–
I don’t think CO2 changes lapse rate, I heard lots people claim it does, but I think everyone agrees that it mostly water vapor that changes lapse rate and does this due it being condensable in atmosphere.
CO2 gases does condense into solid on Mars. So anyhow t seems CO2 on Earth would related to radiant process.
In terms CO2 only, Mars has far more CO2 than Earth, about 30 times as much per square meter of surface.
Some claim there is greenhouse effect on Mars, but other latent heat associated to freezing CO2, there does not seem be a warming effect due it’s atmosphere.
But one also say, that other Mars having around average temperature of -60 C {and could be warmer or colder- and are we talking ground surface or surface air- and if surface air, how far off the surface as there wide difference in less than 1 meter of height in regards to near the ground surface on Mars}.
In terms of warming effects of CO2 on Earth, I tend of believe in it warming in top 100 meters or so
But I don’t think much agreement about it. If I were guess what most common view, it’s effect is suppose effect radiation emitted at 5 to 7 km elevation. Though maybe 7 to 9 km.
The problem I have any religion is the internal confusion about their religion.
I can agree that Jesus was a god, but then I sort gets into to topic gods with me which conflicts idea of the need
for one god, but again Christianity has sort of 3 gods, and I also to tend to go in direction there is only 1 God, which is *perfectly able* to have many gods, which devolve into topic of angels. And counting how many could dance on pin, and etc.
Or quite willing to listen their religion. But also tends into secrets in any religion. And secrets are never important, but does manage to confuse the followers. It seems obvious that secrets are political way to control the believers.
And the leadership are the most idiotic. The current Pope is regarded by all as complete fool, and seems no doubt because he talks too much.
LikeLike
dT/dz = -g / Cp
Of course CO2 alters the lapse rate. How can it not? It has a different Cp than other gases and therefore its proportion must alter the lapse rate. QED
LikeLike
Cp being heat capacity?
All major gases in atmosphere have different heat capacities. Air is about 1000 joules per kg per 1 C increase or
decrease in temperature. CO2 is less than 1000 joules per kg per 1 K, Argon which far more abundant than CO2
is lot less than 1.
Speaking heat capacity, liquid water is 4179.6 joules per kg when water is 25 C. Heat capacity changes a bit depending temperature. Quote something:
—
Q = cp m dT
where
Q = amount of heat (kJ)
cp = specific heat (kJ/kgK)
m = mass (kg)
dT = temperature difference between hot and cold side (K)
Consider the energy required to heat 1.0 kg of water from 0 oC to 100 oC when the specific heat of water is 4.19 kJ/kgoC–
Example Heating Water
Consider the energy required to heat 1.0 kg of water from 0 oC to 100 oC when the specific heat of water is 4.19 kJ/kgoC:
Q = (4.19 kJ/kgoC) (1.0 kg) ((100 oC) – (0 oC))
= 419 (kJ)
—
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html
But we want saltwater:
— 39.86 kJ
It takes 39.86 kJ to heat 1 kg of seawater from 0 to 10 °C.–
Googled
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085117#:~:text=It%20takes%2039.86%20kJ%20to,0%20to%2010%20%C2%B0C.
But it’s warming to 10 C, let’s roughly 1/2 it so 0 to 5 C
19930 joules per kg or 19.93 million joules per ton or roughly cubic meter of ocean water {it would slight compressed
at depth, but seems insignificant factor.
Your number which seems low, I guess because averaging with land area: 91.6 mW/m
Or 329.76 watts per hour or 329.76 joules of heat in a hour of time.
Not working. 3.986 KJ per Kg per K.
3986 KJ per ton per K or 3.986 million joules. And divided by 329.76 joules is 12,086.48 hours
to warm cubic meter water by 1 K. But concerned about less say 1/100th of C
120 hours.
So 60 hours the first 1/2 meter water above the sea floor could warm by .01 C and
120 hour the 1 meter height is warmed by .01 C. And put 3.986 million joules heat into a
cubic meter of seawater.
Roughly speaking the average temperature of ocean doesn’t change in 1000 years.
An 1 degree change is “impossible” or 1 C change is the end of the world, if continue like
climate change idiots claims it could do.
Or would .5 C increase in average temperature is ‘remarkable, and we have not had such
increase in ocean temperature within 1000 year. Or wild claim is portion of ocean warmed
by .2 C would tiny compared to .5 C increase of entire ocean.
I think it’s quite possible {and may happened, the entire has cooled .5 C over the last +5000 years.
Or I think possible 1 C warming has occurred in time periods of 10,000 years.
And I would say to some kind balance ocean cooling and ocean warming due to sunlight, and when just
consider sunlight, the cooling seems more powerful.
So I would say global climate is “measured” in thousand of years. {and weather is mater of hours or mins}.
So 5 days is insignificant in terms of global climate. Plus everyone say the only way to measure global temperature
is over time periods 30 years {some say 17 years for some reason- I would at least 100 years to measure it- which is serious problem for the short lifetime of people- it should introduce bias due career goals.}
What also known by “everyone” is this interglacial period will end, it’s only a mater of when. Or would say
our ocean is going to cool to lower temperature than 3.5 C, and it only a question of when. Or we are
in an Ice Age: Intergalactic periods are about 1/5th the duration of glaciation periods. Or about 20,000 vs about 100,000 years.
So in 5 days adds 3.986 million joules and 5000 days adds 3986 million joules of heat to ocean, and 5000 days
is mere 13.7 years. This is 3986 million joules per square meter, and per square km it’s 3986 million million joules or
3.985 x 10^15 joules. 1 metaton bomb is 4.18 x 10^15 joules vs 3.985 x 10^15 joules is slightly.
The underwater nuke test weren’t as much as 1 metaton and they were in comparably shallow water- “WIGWAM was the first atomic test in the
deep ocean, and it remains the only test that has been conducted in water deeper than 1,000 ft (300 m).” and 30 kt
Since ocean floor is 361.9 million square kilometers. It would similar to exploding 361.9 million slightly less powerful than 1 metaton
nuclear bombs at +4000 meter of ocean depth every 13.7 years and after 137 year of this, and if for massive cooling effect of falling
cold polar waters this could signifcantly warm the ocean in very short period of time.
But one is nullify an effect of the cold water falling which isn’t even mentioned in any Global Energy Budgets.
LikeLike
91.6 mW/m^2 is a heat flux. It’s not kinetic energy. If you want to know the T, then just look directly at geotherm diagrams:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4c8bc9a7aa958139da673ed69fcd4990.webp
The minimum is 0C. This is BULK heat. The real dense deal. There is no problem with sensible ocean heating. The heat flux is a type of gradient measure, and totally inapropriate, unless you’re prospecting for “geothermal energy” for electricity production.
LikeLike
Interesting Zoe.
Here in Sweden we are using two methods to extract energy from the soil. One is to put horizontal pipes 1-2m below the surface.The other is to drill 100-200m deep holes. In both variants we are using heat pumps to extract the energy conserved in the soil. By altering gas pressure we can lift a 6-8C source to 30-70C and then distribute that within our houses for heating and hot water.
In your theory what portion of the 6-8C is generated from the Th side?
In the descriptions I read it is 100% the sun and/or ground water originally heated by the sun. Th contribution is virtually zero even at -200m.
True or false?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question.
Mostly False.
The Th at -200m is COMPLETELY of geothermal origin. However, I suppose it’s possible for the water to have first been heated by the sun, then it seeped into the ground, where it was maintained by geothermal, then came back up.
There is no solar action to maintain such high level of energy for water at depths below 10 meters (possibly less for Sweden). Anything below that is geothermal.
The shallow soil pipes are indeed pure solar.
LikeLike
Firstly I am on your side, we need to poke a hole in this insane climate catastrophe story.
You can see by following the provided website link that I am trying to prove that temperature measurements are not reliable and to a high degree “administrated”.
Now to my follow up question to illustrate how I think the climate complex sees it.
Imagine it is night and the temperature is -10C. My heat pipes still enjoys a +6C source for heat. I have invented a machine that can rip of the soil down to 2 meters in 1 second. At the bottom I find two equally sized stones. I leave one on the ground and put the other on a table. The table has been outside for a while so it already -10C.
Both stones will eventually cool to -10C. The one on the table will cool faster because the one I left on ground enjoys the conserved energy in the soil.
Has also Th a dampening effect on the cooling?
Here is where they use the approx 9mW/m2. (Hope I remember that figure right)
Comments?
LikeLike
90mW. Of course.
LikeLike
Hi Zoe, you’ve just been recommended to me. I recently contacted Baylor Fox-Kemper, an IPCC chapter head, about the 0.2°C warming over time of Lake Tanganiyka at 1000m+ ( you can google it), which directly correlates with the sudden increase in temperature at this depth in the geothermal gradients of two deep mines in Tasmania. He said he found it “interesting”. Please can I email you the data and correspondence so we can both take this further. Alan (amlowey@hotmail.co.uk)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure. I will contact you.
LikeLike
The geographic separation is quite big between Tasmania and Lake Tanganiyka -almost one third of the earth’s circumference. Why would there be a relation? Do you mean Tanzania?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I propose that the Earth’s mantle convection is increasing due to an extra gravitational pull on the Earth’s core. Therefore I would expect the underside of the Earth’s crust to be warming over all geographical locations.
LikeLike
The relevant paper can be viewed by googling ‘The physics of the warming of Lake Tanganyika by climate change’, finding the free version and then looking at Fig.3. Notice the sudden increase in warming 1km below the surface. A Professor of earth science will try and brush this anomaly off as due to mixing with surface waters. It really doesn’t make any sense. An actual increase in temperature of the surrounding rock is a better fit to the data. It’s just that it goes against the very foundations of science laid down 300 years ago. The geothermal gradients of the two deep mines had a kink in increasing temperature at this depth. The temperature gradients are not linear past 1000m+.
LikeLike
Would you infer then, that during ice-ages, the gravitational pull is weaker? Is there anything in the scientific literature that indicates this?
LikeLike
Anyone who is interested in this new way of thinking about climate change should start with the imagery of how ocean tides are created. It’s to do with earth tides, the bending of the Earth’s crust by upto a meter which pushes the water of the oceans from beneath.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
I’ve recently had a telephone interview with a science journalist from a major UK newspaper and managed to convince him I was worthy of an article:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1308437/dark-matter-news-scientist-moon-core-theory-newton-einstein
There’s much more explanation I supply within the comments section.
LikeLike
The ice ages can be viewed in an entirely new way. I propose that as the Earth slowly traverses the plane of the solar system, which is the same as the planet Jupiter, gravity increases from the Earth’s core. This increase in tidal strength would bring extra precipitation to the polar regions. The increase in snowfall accumulates at a greater rate than summer melting, leading to glacial buildup and advance. The retreat of the glaciers corresponds to the lowering of tidal forces as the Earth orbit comes out of Jupiter’s strong gravitational influence.
The ice ages have little to do with the Sun, much more with the failed star Jupiter.
No greenhouse gases are needed in this explanation of climate change.
LikeLike
It’s actually incorrect to think that the Moon’s gravity pulls the ocean water to create the tides. If this were the case, then water vapour in the form of clouds would follow the orbit of the Moon. This is not observed. Laplace 300 years ago used mathematics to show that it’s the deformation of the solid Earth which contributes to the ocean tides. His calculations don’t agree with common sense that a *weak* force can bend the crust by 1 meter. Try holding two rocks together and tell me when you feel a force of attraction. The relative size/distance of the Moon to Earth is comparable to holding a pea at arms length with your eyeball being the size of Mother Earth. Newton and Laplace wouldn’t have been aware of this discrepancy in scale. They also didn’t notice that the highest tides don’t occur during a solar eclipse when the Sun and Moon are inline but when the Moon is on the equator. Simple common sense and observation confirms the hypothesis of dark matter at the centre of the Moon which pulls on the Earth’s core.
LikeLike
Even though it acted only at the Earth’s core, would it not result in the Moon’s core pulling on the planet as a whole? Can the orbital path of the moon be explained by a stronger mutual attraction than we think there is?
LikeLike
You are asking some good questions. The interior of the Earth is regarded as fluid, such as the volcanic magma we observe. The same applies to the very core, even if it is dark matter. So, yes, if the dark matter of the Moon pulls on the Earth’s core, then this energy gets transferred towards the surface and becomes a bulge. Similarly on the Moon, the seismometers left after the landings support the notion of moonquakes and that the core is active.
I propose that there’s also the added effect of the Earth-Moon system slowly traversing the plane of Jupiter, which is very close to the plane of the Sun.
It’s this extra gravitational effect which is causing the Moon to currently drift away from the Earth.
It’s also this extra gravitational effect which is causing the South Atlantic Anomaly which originates from the Earth’s core.
https://www.sciencealert.com/mysterious-anomaly-weakening-earth-s-magnetic-field-seems-to-be-splitting-into-two
LikeLike
There’s also the issue of dramatic climate change on the 1,470-year cycle which I attribute to the Moon’s orbit becoming flatter and therefore closer due to the strong gravitational force on the equatorial plane. Luckily I calculate the next event to be around 700 years away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event
LikeLike
Here’s the latest direct evidence (in my opinion) of a strong gravitational force on the galactic plane:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200115132316.htm
“These objects look like gas and behave like stars,” said co-author Andrea Ghez, UCLA’s Lauren B. Leichtman and Arthur E. Levine Professor of Astrophysics and director of the UCLA Galactic Center Group.
The new objects look compact most of the time and stretch out when their orbits bring them closest to the black hole.
LikeLike
Alan Lowey I see you’ll be keeping Zoe busy for a while. I hope things work out for the best for the interest of science.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s a lot to take in because it’s so new. Thank you for the introduction once again.
I was just replying to someone who “smells the backing of oil companies” when anyone is challenging the mainstream narrative:
“The scientists who advise the policy makers are confused. Try googling the ‘pebble accretion theory’ and then hold a rock in each hand and bring them together until you feel the force of gravity… there isn’t enough to be felt. How would pebbles and rocks cms to meters in size gravitate together in the vastness of space⁉️ It’s a psychological effect that has stemmed from Newton declaring the ‘hand of God’ instead of a particle force-carrier in the shape of a corkscrew.”
LikeLike
Sorry it will take me a while to parse the data you gave me. I’m currently in Rome getting big $ for my private equity business.
LikeLike
Okay, no problem. Thanks for the update.
LikeLike
Gravity is a strange concept reminds me of the “ether” in pre-Laws of Thermodynamics. A mass has gravity but the mass has to be large enough to create gravity but that gravity doesn’t work on people walking on the mass producing gravity but does work on objects falling to the surface of the gravitational mass. Gravity however, pulls galaxies around the universe.
Many consistent logical l flaws.
I don’t discard gravity, I just believe our understanding of it is still very speculative.
LikeLike
Gases expand to fill the void. Gravitatitional collapse of primordial gases to create stars makes zero sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent insight Zoe.
LikeLike
You used that four letter word I detest: m-a-s-s. Every time it’s used you are subscribing to Newton’s erroneous equation that all matter is equivalent. This is not the case in my hypothesis. Dark/different matter exerts the very strong gravitational force at the centre of the planets and major moons. See here for how unexpectedly Venus’s core is active to mainstream science:
LikeLike
You’re right CD about the issue of gravity being a weak force in everyday life and yet cosmological bodies can create attraction on vast scales. The way the mainstream overcome this is to use the idea of density=mass/volume. Because they start with Newton’s equation as truth, it’s simply a matter of increasing the assumed density of a heavenly body to make the math ‘work’. When the limits of this ideology is reached, the concept of ‘missing mass’ is invoked. This is where the term ‘dark matter’ comes from, because it is assumed to be out there but simply not detected because it doesn’t shine like a star.
It’s been around 50 years with exponentially increasing computing power and resources to find the dark matter but still the penny doesn’t drop that it exists at the center of the stars themselves❗ The science community is very good at assuming a fundamental mistake was made 300 years ago. Einstein made some wonderful progress but the concept of ‘warping space-time’ has been a disaster.
LikeLike
Edit – “The science community *isn’t* very good at assuming a fundamental mistake was made 300 years ago.”
LikeLike
Not to mention the black hole fallacy. Collapsing gases create black holes? I would think dark matter would be a far more viable explanation for black holes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. The strong gravitational force is exerted along the galactic plane due to the ‘black hole’ at the center of the Milky Way. It also is exerted strongly by the stars which is why the galaxies rotate like a vinyl record disc and not analogous to how planets differ in their orbital velocities around the Sun.
LikeLike
The difference between galaxies and the solar systems is in their formation. The planets tend to be ‘captured’ whilst the stars are formed more ‘in situ’.
I’ve just thought that I have created 5 songs with the help of a professional singer/musician. One of them is called ‘In The Beginning’ and is based around the imagery of opposing structures before the ‘big bang’. I use this mental imagery to understand the galaxies and how they are drifting apart due to ‘dark energy’.
If anyone wishes to email me, I’d be more than happy to send the EP, entitled ‘The Heat Of The Moon’. (amlowey@hotmail.co.uk)
LikeLike
The concept of dark/different matter at the center of the Earth and Moon which exert a strong gravitational force between one another as an explanation for ocean tides lends itself to the Expanding Earth Hypothesis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
There is now a mechanism for an increasing volume of Mother Earth. This is why the continent of South America looks as though it could fit snugly into the east coast of the African continent.
The dark/different matter at the Earth’s core would occassionally come into contact with ordinary matter revolving at a much faster rate around it. This high energy friction would cause the dark/different matter to change state into ordinary matter but with an increase in volume due to an increase in entropy (it would become more chaotic in sub-atomic nature).
This may seem like ‘tin-foil hat territory’ today but the basic concept of an expanding Earth was taken seriously by many high profile academics only decades ago. It would be part of the mechanism for plate tectonics which is now accepted in mainstream science. It would solve the non-uniform motion of the plates which is a quietly spoken conundrum of modern geology.
LikeLike
This could be the reason for the Moon currently moving away from the Earth if dark/different matter is slowly converted into ordinary matter. (I know I mentioned Jupiter’s gravity in an earlier post as an explanation).
It would lead to the hypothesis of all moons in the solar system slowly increasing in orbital distance.
Is the dark/different matter at the core of the Sun slowly converting to ordinary matter? Are the orbits of the planets slowly getting wider too?
Are galaxies ever so slightly expanding due to the dark/different matter at their centers converting to ordinary matter? Were the spiral arms of the Milky Way more tightly packed earlier in it’s evolution?
Questions for future scientists to test and ponder..
LikeLike
I just found out that the Earth is indeed moving away from the Sun in a similar fashion to the Moon.
https://www.longdom.org/proceedings/the-flyby-anomaly-in-need-of-new-physics-9381.html
“At the end of the 19th century, astronomers discovered that the perihelion of Mercury was slowly advancing in a way that could not be explained by Newtonian physics. As it turned out, this small anomaly in Mercury’s orbit has found an explanation in GTR. We may point four classes of astrometric anomalies: The flyby anomaly, addressed in this work; the slow increase of the astronomical unit (AU), approximately the distance from the Earth to the Sun; the pioneer anomaly, which is now a solved puzzle and; the increase in the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit.”
Note that twelve years ago the NASA scientist Slava Turyshev replied to my email where I suggested the extra gravity on the solar plane. He asked for more information but I didn’t have anything formulated so I didn’t reply. How history will remember that little story..
LikeLike
If only we could send probes to the far reaches of the Universe or learn of a way to “peek” through space without distance being a factor.
LikeLike
The Hubble space telescope Ultra DeepField does a pretty good job.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field
It tells us that it’s galaxies as far as you can see. They are ‘observed’ to be moving away from one another, which gives rise to the term ‘dark energy’.
LikeLike
Note that the Milky Way is moving towards it’s closest neighbour Andromeda and so is an exception to the rule. It’s a very very long time into the future and so nothing for us to worry about.
LikeLike
I have an easy to understand explanation for dark energy. During the buildup of structure before the Big Bang, gravitons radiate in waves around a 4 dimensional hypersphere. This is analogous to a balloon with all the galaxies drawn on the surface – it takes a bit of mental jiggery. When the gravitons arrive, they appear to act as a force of repulsion relative to their place of origin.
LikeLike
Here’s a YouTube explanation. Remember that it’s also quite possible Einstein’s gravity theory is wrong:
LikeLike
Here’s my attempt to influence the next upcoming webinar (Tues Aug 1st) by the leading figures in science to achieve a Theory of Everything:
“Professor Keating, thank you for being engaging with non-high-profile enthusiasts like myself.
A layperson is bewildered by the acceptance of academia that gravity is a *weak* force on the cosmological scale. In effect, one person in high office, 300 years ago, concluded this was the case.
An example of this ludicrousness, is the theory of formation of planets from planetesimals which are assumed to arise due to the “gravitational collapse of gas and dust”. Someone pointed out to me that a gas expands within a room, the opposite to contraction. Two pebbles in your hand don’t gravitationally attract, so how could they in the vastness of space?
Please can you discuss the conclusion that gravity can be both a weak force and a strong force – it is presumably dependent on the entropy of matter.
Please invite Stephen Wolfram for a future webinar with the need to question the wisdom of those in the past and to begin again from first principles.”
LikeLike
Zoe, followed here from PSI comment, I’ve been writing on variable, fission based Geothermal setting climate temperature baseline since 2009. My website was hacked, currently offline. Have you submitted to PSI and been rejected ?
LikeLike
Hi Joseph,
No, I’ve never been rejected because I’ve never submitted. John links blog posts all the time. If he hasn’t linked my posts, it’s probably because he doesn’t like them. 🙁
LikeLike
Zoe:
The idea is simple. The planets are not complete slaves to the sun. They have their own thermal energy.
JMcG:
Yes, of course they do.
Zoe:
The sun adds to it, creating the surface temperatures we observe.
JMcG:
Right.
Zoe:
Fourier was a geothermal denier; he claimed the extra warming came from the atmosphere. Since he said it, it must be true. All climate scientists uncritically followed him.
JMcG:
The atmosphere does play a role also. How is this not obvious?
LikeLike
What role do you think it plays?
LikeLike
It achieves insulation and minimizes temperature extremes–obviously. But, of course, you know this. Which leaves me scratching my head wondering what you are going on about.
LikeLike
The question at hand is: Why is the surface ~15C ?
LikeLike
Ocean surface averages 17 C. And Land averages 10 C, the average is about 15 C
Air does cause less extremes in temperature.
Ocean cause a lot less extremes in surface air temperature.
Global warming is not hotter air temperature- that is a straight lie.
Global warming is a more uniform global average temperature- or even less extreme temperatures-
contrary to the lying Fake News. Who’s motto is: “if it bleeds, it leads”
Not contrary to “the science”.
LikeLike
Cute. The question is:
Why ocean surface averages 17 C and Land averages 10 C?
LikeLike
How can we really know? With no atmosphere, your thermometer would have to be stuck into the ground in lack of an atmosphere to transfer heat to it
LikeLike
–Why ocean surface averages 17 C and Land averages 10 C?–
Largely have those temperatures due to having 70% of Earth surface, and 30% land and
being 1 AU distance from the Sun.
Some say it’s 71% and 29% but it seems for billions of years there has been about this 70%
to 30% ratio of deep oceans and land. And it’s geology thing, related formation of granite- or the quantity of
granite has been around for billions of years. And though they have been torn apart and combined in different land
masses, one can roughly say Land is ancient and ocean floor is young.[less than 200 million year old].
Another factor is the amount of Atmosphere. If we had a lot more atmosphere, we would have a more uniform
air temperature. To make easier, say we had 10 times more Nitrogen and Oxygen and Argon. That would mean far less sunlight reaches the Earth surface, and dimness of present sunlight would be roughly 10 times as much.
To make it easier, right now, if in tropics when sun at noon and at zenith. Wiki:
“…the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2”
When hour after sunrise or a hour before sunset, the sun is 15 degree above the horizon, it’s:
15° 3.81 air Mass and sunlight is 680 watts
5° 10.3 air masses and sunlight is 325 watts according to the chart, here:
https://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/air-mass-and-insolation1.htm
It doesn’t mention the direct sunlight and indirect sunlight as wiki does- but it seem with more scattering sunlight
one should “more” of it indirect or perhaps large portion of 680 or 325 watts is indirect sunlight or not measuring it
and it’s added on top of these numbers. For 90 degrees they say it’s
90° 1.00 air mass and 1040 watts of sunlight {a bit less than wiki and not including the indirect sunlight}
Any with Earth having 10 atm at noon the sunlight would be about 350 watts of direct sunlight and imagine 50 to 100 watts of indirect sunlight. Or could say less than 500 watts of direct and indirect sunlight.
1° 26.3 air masses and sunlight is 83 watts and with 10 atm world one have 26 air masses when was about 25 degrees above the horizon. So you wouldn’t have sun rises or sets, it fades into darkness.
This of course is also what happens with Venus surface with it’s 94 atm of atmosphere and thick global clouds.
Earth with 10 atm atmosphere would dim and dark world, and Venus is more dim and dark world- at surface {no one would live on venus surface, you live in cloud deck {and mine the clouds- and have less of them}}. Of course if Earth had 10 atm, one would also live in the sky- and have more sunlight.
Of course another popular option would to live on top of mountains,
Currently on Earth 1/2 atmosphere is below 5.3 km, with 10 atm half atmosphere would below, say 4 km.
4000 meter or 13123 feet and fair amount mountains that high. And mountains have “warming effect”.
So living high mountains in much less dim world, and ground could warm up to say 50 to 60 C and air probably
less than 10 C, a lot of convection heating of air. But globally not a lot land at high elevation.
But if removed say 1/2 the ocean and didn’t significantly alter earth’s topography- then there would a world with higher elevation. So in that world, ocean would not be much of warming effect, and land would warm.
But in our world, ocean warms and land cools.
LikeLike
Amazing. What allows you to cook eggs?
You can’t mention the stove. Is it backradiation from GHGs or atmospheric pressure? You have to pick from those two, you can’t mention the stove.
Have you learned anything from this site?
Are you a troll?
LikeLike
–Amazing. What allows you to cook eggs?
You can’t mention the stove. Is it backradiation from GHGs or atmospheric pressure? You have to pick from those two, you can’t mention the stove.–
First, we are in Ice Age. Second when earth was in Ice Age and there was a lot more global warming- Earth still was fairly cool.
As for the choices, backradiation or atmospheric pressure. Backradiation is more far more disilusional than atmosphere pressure. But I think indicated above, that if increase atmospheric pressure by 10 times, it does not make Earth hotter, though does more global warming in terms of having a more uniform surface temperature- though I didn’t get it, it seems: I say, the tropics would have been much cooler.
One could say by 10 times the amount atmosphere, you making the lower atmosphere more like our Ocean or an ocean. Our ocean is mostly a very uniform temperature.
One thing, about ideal thermally conductive blackbody is it’s an uniform temperature, which the cargo cult translates in an average temperature. Averaging and uniform is different,
And don’t really understand why people imagines a 15 C average temperature brings to mind “warmth”.
Or set that as your room temperature- it’s cold.
The places on Earth which have anything close to uniform temperature**, is tropics and the volume of our Ocean- though surface of the ocean varies a significant amount- it reflects or is, global average surface temperature.
In tropics which is dominated by tropical ocean, even the land temperature is somewhat uniform- doesn’t freeze unless one is at higher elevations. Of course in temperate Zone {and arctic zones} it does freeze at lower elevations- and can get well below freezing.
** average ocean surface temperature is 17 C, but tropical ocean 26 “average” and rest “averages” 11 C- and 26 C
it a bit warm as room temperature- and 11 C is crazy cold. and if 1/2 60% of ocean, one 1/2 cold, and other half half a crazier cold. People appear obsessive about wanting to live in a refrigerator. And animals and plants don’t “want” to live in a refrigerator {not even a polar bear}. Maybe this obsession as to do with spending so much time in Glaciation Period- the good old days! Or Little Ice Age is “remembered” fondly. I blame the Germans, but not everyone is German. Sure, sure one blame the Canucks, Russians and crazy frozen middle of American. Oh guess north east US is pretty friggin cold also. What NY state temperature, 8.5 C, was 7.5 C a few decades ago. Berlin is 10 C- which 1 C warmer than Europe {probably mostly due to urban heat island effect}.
But to answer question.
Earth average temperature is the average temperature of entire ocean which is about 3.5 C.
Average global average temperature of 10 C for land and 17 C for ocean surface, if mostly illusion of much higher average surface air temperature in 40% of the world call the Tropics.
Plus what important for rest of world is the average air temperature is average the daytime high temperature {which caused obviously, by sunlight] but if there was colder ocean, outside tropical would have even colder nights and winter. So the daytime high depends how cold it was at night, and drier, one can higher daytime increase, and normal drier condition is about 30 C warmer at warmer part of day. Plus latent heat related to freezing, is resistance against cooler night time temperatures {or if everything already frozen, there not this resistance, to further drops in temperature- or making water freeze is “warming effect” and of course require more heat to unfreeze.
LikeLike
“if increase atmospheric pressure by 10”
And what could cause that to happen? Why aren’t more gases escaping from ocean/land right now?
You didn’t learn anything from this blog, did you?
LikeLike
–“if increase atmospheric pressure by 10”
And what could cause that to happen? Why aren’t more gases escaping from ocean/land right now?
You didn’t learn anything from this blog, did you?–
Nothing could make that happen. Other humans or space aliens adding more atmosphere to
Earth
What didn’t I learn from this blog. was that .,, you don’t like fanciful “scenarios”??
Or are you referring to geothermal heat and that with all that added atmosphere with it’s atmospheric pressure
would cause a lot warming- something like a mini Venus?
If that is what you means, then what do you consider would happen if Earth had 10 atm rather than 1 Atm.
What does your theory predict?
But on that topic, I do think geothermal heat could explain Venus hot surface temperature- I hold that as
a possibility. Though mainly related idea Venus can periodically be resurface due geothermal . Or some think Venus has very young surface and it periodically turns molten.
And also hold other possibilities that would explain Venus [other than geothermal heat- and/or geothermal heat is adding some significant portion of it.
But how I have explained why Venus is hot, is what I think has the greatest possibility of being correct: in short, that Venus clouds are a high elevation surface which heated by sunlight.
Just as there various theories explaining why the Moon exist as our moon- there are number of theories,
and I think Giant Impact Hypothesis seems most likely to be closer to being correct.
Though also possible the other ideas might actually be correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
LikeLike
You got causality backwards. It’s temperature that determines atmospheric pressure.
LikeLike
Oh forgot correct a mistake:
“Second when earth was in Ice Age and there was a lot more global warming- Earth still was fairly cool.”
should have been:
Second, when earth was NOT in Ice Ages and there was a lot more “global warming”- Earth was still fairly cool.
LikeLike
–Zoe Phin
October 15, 2020 at 11:03 AM
You got causality backwards. It’s temperature that determines atmospheric pressure.–
Not with an atmosphere. With sealed container, temperature determines pressure.
Or earth pressure is 10 tons of weight of the atmosphere above the surface, go higher elevation,
less air above you, and less pressure. Go below sea level and it’s more the 10 tons of air above
you. Warmer air at tropic doesn’t increase pressure, colder air at poles does decrease pressure.
One 1 atm of pressure is about 10 meter under water on Earth- 100 meter underwater = 10 atm or
147 psi and is added to 14.7 psi giving absolute pressure of 147 + 14.7 = 161.7 psi
It’s weight rather mass, or mass with force of Earth’s gravity. One cubic meter water is a ton, 10 cubic
meter stacked on top of each other has weight of 10 tons per square meter. Earth atmosphere has
a mass of 10 tons per square meter.
Mars gravity is 0.377 of Earth gravity: 10 meters under water on mars has 10 ton water but weight
of times 0.377 which equals 3,770 kg of weight vs earth weight of 10,000 kg.
Or in terms psi, earth 14.7 times 0.377 = 5.5419 psi.
And human don’t require a pressure suit to breath in an pressure of 2.5 psi. Or with scuba gear, you
swim 5 meter below the surface of water on Mars. Or you also hold your breath, and swim under 5 meter
of water. Or go from diving bell to diving bell- or anything holding air under the water.
Or if in submarine and open hatch in the water, water will rush in until their enough air pressure to balance
whatever the water pressure is at. If pressurize a compartment, and one equals water pressure, and then
open a hatch in the floor, water will not enter the pressurized compartment. Though if in the “ceiling” or side
window that is different, as air just bubbles up and water comes in.
Or just like an inverted glass if you put in sink full of water.
LikeLike
Not with atmosphere? Surely more molecules released to the atmosphere (more heat leads to more evaporation) will cause the atmosphere to weigh more and as such exert a larger pressure on the surface. Or do you suggest that the extra molecules escape the force of gravity and go off to space?
LikeLike
“…and go off to space?”
Define “space”.
Low earth orbit is still within Earth’s atmosphere {though at very very low air density].
Wiki, Thermosphere:
“The thermosphere is the layer in the Earth’s atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Within this layer of the atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation causes photoionization/photodissociation of molecules, creating ions; the thermosphere thus constitutes the larger part of the ionosphere.
…
Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged particles, enabling radio waves to be refracted and thus be received beyond the horizon. In the exosphere, beginning at about 600 km (375 mi) above sea level, the atmosphere turns into space, although, by the judging criteria set for the definition of the Kármán line, the thermosphere itself is part of space.”
Kármán line is the international definition of where space “begins”. And at 100 km above sea level, satellites orbit- and that is why called space.
US air force calls 50 miles [80 km} up, the beginning of space- and gives it’s pilots Astronaut wings if they fly that high [or higher].
The International Space Station {ISS} is at about 400 km above sea level {or within Earth’s atmosphere} .
The Van Allen belts start at about 600 km.
Wiki, Van Allen belts:
“A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet’s magnetic field. Earth has two such belts and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The belts are named after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery. Earth’s two main belts extend from an altitude of about 640 to 58,000 km (400 to 36,040 mi) above the surface, in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays. By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the atmosphere from destruction.”
[[There is too much radiation if ISS orbits too close to Van Alan belt]]
Though satellites can have “radiation hardening” and can orbit in Van Allen belts.
LikeLike
Molecules place high up where the effect of gravity is smaller, still increases the pressure
LikeLike
“Molecules place high up where the effect of gravity is smaller, still increases the pressure”
I don’t think things in orbit, increase the pressure. But air molecules can be in place we are orbiting stuff
and so not be “in orbit”- or they be in sub-orbital trajectories {hit/bounce earth} or “when they hit” they add
pressure. And would guess all/most molecules in low orbit are in sub-orbital or rarely spend much time circling
the planet. Orbital trajectory are at much higher velocity. It easy for us to put things in sub-orbital trajectories, and
even easier molecules to be in sub-orbital trajectory.
As example, SpaceShipOne:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne
And/or Virgin Galactic carries rocket to about 20,000 meters elevation, and launches it from this elevation.
And X-15 did something similar- used mothership get above most of atmosphere, and then launches the rocket plane.
So joyrides of up and down into space {above 100 km} fairly easy, but would harder fly from New York to London- and being able to cheaply fly passengers suborbitally from NYC to London, is the holy grail of suborbital travel. Of course large part problem is the re-entry at London, and such thing for molecules is not vaguely a “problem”.
One way to do, was researched decades ago of skipping spacecraft off the atmosphere- which air molecule could and probably are doing a lot.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32261.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital_spaceflight
They spent too much money on a government program {can’t remember it’s name} and it didn’t get anywhere.
{N and – some number- I looked briefly and didn’t find it}
Anyhow when they come down, yes. Though I guess also, when going up, but while in freefall, nope.
LikeLike
“With sealed container, temperature determines pressure.”
Same without a seal. Seals don’t invert things. You’re saying that taking off the seal now somehow means that it is pressure that made it hot! Sorry, but that is too funny.
LikeLike
If you are laughing, could be getting closer to the truth.
{{Or, hopelessly mad.}}
“Seals don’t invert things.”
Seals can balance a ball on their nose.
“You’re saying that taking off the seal now somehow means that it is pressure that made it hot!”
If reduce the pressure of gas, the gas cools.
But on Earth at a location, the pressure remain fairly constant. A hurricane can make a bit of difference.
But air density changes a fair amount- or air temperature can change a fair amount.
-50 C: 1.582 kg per cubic meter
0 C: 1.292 kg per cubic meter
50 C: 1.093 kg per cubic meter
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html
Lowest recorded air pressure {at sea level}. Google:
–The lowest sea level pressure recorded at any United States certified observing station was 892 millibars (26.34″), recorded at Matecumbe Key, Florida on September 2, 1935 in the “Labor Day Hurricane”–
I want to convert to psi. 14.7 psi = 1013.529 millibars and 892 = 12.93737 psi
A change of 2 psi might cause your nose to bleed but to get such change, normally, requires going up or down
So sea level to 2000 meter, 14.7 to 13.7 and to 4000 meters 12.7 psi
and going down: “-4500 aprox. deepest point under sea level of Sognefjorden, Norway: 17.2 psi”
So, if driving car, it seems your ears are popping from less than 2000 meters
Can you drive car with change of 4000 meters [13123 feet} elevation? I got to look it up.
Yes, you can, a few. Oh, no just higher elevation, I meant can drive up 4000 meter within few hours of time.
So, apparently, no. I don’t think even done as much as 2000 meters, driving. But nor I have had the pleasure
of being in -50 C air temperature. Just a stick in the mud.
LikeLike
“Anyhow when they come down, yes. Though I guess also, when going up, but while in freefall, nope.”
Hmm. Somehow it might seem I have circled back to the issue of ” It’s temperature that determines atmospheric pressure”
So temperature is velocity and I talking bouncing and their velocity might matter.
So, try this, if you jumping up and down on a pile sand, does how high you jump make difference to weigh under the sand? Or thousands of people jumping down at random time on huge pile of sand.
It might something to do with it, but seems mostly about weight.
Hmm, sand is quite different, closer would be jumping up and down on water. Or since there is sort of a barrier, jumping and down on frozen lake and effecting pressure in water below the ice. That seems better than sand.
So could get something to do harmonic stuff- brings to mind pressure waves- what do people think causes them.
Hmm, wiki
“The mechanism for the forcing of the wave, for example, the generation of the initial or prolonged disturbance in the atmospheric variables, can vary. Generally, waves are either excited by heating or dynamic effects, for example the obstruction of the flow by mountain ranges like the Rocky Mountains in the U.S. or the Alps in Europe. …
“Atmospheric waves transport momentum, which is fed back into the background flow as the wave dissipates. This wave forcing of the flow is particularly important in the stratosphere”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave
I don’t know, but I would tend to call the ice on the lake, the stratosphere.
I don’t much about all these waves- though apparently, weird or extreme weather can or is related to them.
LikeLike
Without an atmosphere we wouldn’ have weather, it is as simple as that. Two facts: 1.We would still have an average temperature of the surface of the earth. 2.More sunlight would reach the earth.
LikeLike
Well, you have what is called space weather. But generally what called weather is about the atmosphere.
And weather is not global temperature or global climate.
What determine global temperature and global climate is the ocean.
We in an Ice Age because we have a cold ocean.
3.5 C is the average temperature of the entire liquid ocean.
What determine air temperature is the surface of entire Ocean, and that average is about 17 C.
And what major factor in global temperature air temperature is the ocean surface temperature
of Earth’s heat engine, which loosely speaking is the tropical ocean surface temperature, which
averages 26 C. Tropics {40% of surface area} remaining 60% of ocean surface temperature is
about 11 C, the average of both is 17 C.
Quite simply surface temperature of ocean is not weather, but it controls the global weather.
And global weather effect land surface air temperature. Of course the presence of sunlight
warms ocean and land surface, which results in an increase of surface air temperature.
Or without our ocean, Earth is more like Mars or our Moon.
And Earth with it’s ocean at same distance of Venus from the Sun, is not like Venus.
It’s certainly a hotter sunlight. And we certainly would not be in an Ice Age, for very long. It might
take 1000 years, but then we certainly and completely would have left our Ice Age.
Anyhow Earth geothermal heat, effects our ocean temperature. And geothermal heat could
cause ocean temperature to increase by 10 C. Or I would say geothermal heat has caused
our ocean to be much warmer, then present cold ocean. Or PETM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
was largely about geothermal heating of our ocean.
And claim our ocean increase by more than 10 K, or could be been around 15 C.
And of course if average ocean is 15, 60% of our ocean surface is not about 11 C,
but instead average would been about 18 C. And giving the average ocean global surface
somewhere north of 25 C and increase average land by about 10 C.
Or global average surface temperature of close to 25 C and making Earth having more
uniform temperature. Or instead daily swings being 20 K, it would average less than 5 K
and far less seasonal swing in temperatures. Or if winter now can -40 C and summer 40 C
it’s less than 20 K seasonal swing in temperature.
But you still could find places to ski.
LikeLike
Re: “The Irrelevance of Geothermal Heat Flux”
What is related to irrelevance geothermal heat of Earth?
The debate about what cause Earth to be as warm as it is and how much warmth added from Sun and how much
from the heat of Earth.
And this related to a model of how warm are things in Space.
The basic idea is sunlight is stronger closer to Sun, and stuff would warm related to the blackbody temperature
at distances from the sun and at Earth distance from the Sun the temperature would be about 120 C.
And that lunar surface in sunlight {when sunlight is at zenith} is about 126 C. Or moon surface can spend hours or 24 hours with sunlight at zenith and remains around 126 C. And could spend 1000 years and still be about 126 C- or
roughly 126 C is hot as sun gets when 1 AU {earth distance} from the Sun. And in what we call the space age, we know different surface can different temperature at 1 AU distance. Can make a surface so it’s -40 C rather than 120 C
and other surfaces could be 140 C. And blackbody surface is about absorbing and emitting the most amount energy at it’s surface. And in term model for Earth {or any body in space] there is ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
which gives idea about how sunlight energy can absorbed and emitted by sphere in a vacuum.
If Moon was something like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody, instead of it’s surface with sun at zenith being 126 C, it would be about 5 C, and the entire of Moon would at 5 C. Or entire surface would emit 1/4 of energy it’s disk area could absorb. 1360 watts/ 4 = 340 watts and 338.6 watts emitted from blackbody into vacuum has temperature
of 5 C. So, one could say, Moon is not vaguely like ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
But small spinning space rock at 1 AU is pretty close to average temperature of 5 C
And one say small spinning rock is closer the ideal thermally conductive body.
But here the point of it, the Moon surface say 1 meter below the surface “should be” somewhere near 5 C. And if
-30 C is somewhere near 5 C, it nailed it, One say it missed it by a mile {Bad, Bad Model}.
But I would say under the top surface of Moon, it does make a good refrigerator for beer, and your refrigerator is
quite close to 5 C. And bad. bad model doesn’t allow for lunar surface being fantastic insulator of energy of sunlight.
But the fact the Moon no where near being ideal thermally conductive- would be a clue, that this is happenning.
So I say model doesn’t serious problems- or some use at predicting stuff {which all you hope any model does]
So, moon pretty good for the purpose of keeping stuff cold, providing colder root cellar than is typical on Earth.
But anyhow what ideal thermally conductive blackbody doing is not telling surface temperature in sunlight {5 is not 126 C} rather trying give what could be call an average or uniform temperature of body in Space. And allows one ask why is it not close to what model predicts.
And with Earth. it is remarkable close to being correct, it’s almost to much on the nose.
Or it’s more remarkable close to Earth but Earth is in an Ice Age.
So I say remarkable close because our ocean average [and near uniform] temperature] is 3.5 C
But point was “Irrelevance of Geothermal Heat Flux” and I would say if focus was on ground temperature
{and you could say it was in our recent past} instead surface air temperature then Geothermal heat flux is
more relevant.
Let’s go back to the Moon, does ground temperature have anything to do with the Moon’s surface temperature.
One could say, nothing to to with lunar surface being 126 C when sun is at zenith. But it has something to do with lunar night time surface temperature. And it would have more to do with Lunar nighttime temperature, if the lunar surface was not so well insulated. Or the blazing hot sun at peak when should absorbing a lot energy, is not increasing amount heat added thermal mass of surface, because lunar surface is similar aerogel, wiki:
“Aerogel is a synthetic porous ultralight material derived from a gel, in which the liquid component for the gel has been replaced with a gas without significant collapse of the gel structure.” – “and extremely low thermal conductivity”.
And/or if Moon had as much geothermal heat as Earth has. Either would make night surface much warmer. Though also had faster rotation also would help.
Let’s use the crazy cargo cult greenhouse effect theory, it’s based upon ideal thermally conductive blackbody, and as
is common with lefties, they steal things and pervert things. Started with ideal thermally conductive blackbody- and than removed 100 watts from 340 watt. And then say 240 watts is more watts per square meter than geothermal heat- and so, “The Irrelevance of Geothermal Heat Flux”
{So is it also similar their racist and perverted and evil view of unwashed masses. Or as Clinton said, the deplorables}
But rather worry about how high air temperature gets, does Geothermal heat prevent earth for getting colder at night
or winter.
Or I don’t think the refrigerator temperature 1 meter below lunar surface effect daytime temperature, but has effect upon night time temperature- which one could say is 1/2 the story. though it’s not actually not just 1/2, it’s 3/4rd of story.
LikeLike
Say it a different way, the lunar surface is mostly cold. The Mercury surface is mostly cold {probably most people think Mercury as very Hot!! It does a vey hot region, but it’s a smaller region of the entire surface- or what I mean by mostly cold.
As long as there is not a large axis tilt, the equator is hotter spot on spherical planet. But on Mercury or Moon, on the equator, it’s mostly cold.
Warmer than not at equator, but most of equator area is cold. Or with Moon on equator before sun sets, the surface has cooled a lot. And in early morning, the surface is not very hot. Or more than 1/2 area of equator region is cold.
This not true with Earth and tropical zone {and one can call that “greenhouse effect”- it has to do with atmosphere and has to do with warmed waters of tropical ocean {not talking about radiant effect of greenhouse gases, talking generic meaning of greenhouse effect {well before that cargo cult religion began}. Instead term “greenhouse effect” could use warmed thermal mass, including latent heat of water vapor, and spin rate the planet.
And all greenhouse effects are largely about making a more uniform global temperature, because other wise a spherical planet will always be “mostly” cold.
Now with geothermal heat, it’s a warmth which mostly uniform.
One could argue against geothermal heat warming Earth being “significant”, because Earth is not uniform temperature.
Earth when in Ice Age is not uniform temperature.
Or regions which have average air temperature of 15 C, is only in small region of Earth. And dominate region which is warm and has a nearer uniform temperature is Earth’s tropical ocean area- or as I said tropics {mostly} has greenhouse effect- which largely due to it’s thicker surface layer of warmed water- which due to having more sunlight reach the surface in tropics- 40% area receives more half of total sunlight reaching the surface.
But since Earth is cold {mostly} and because our cold ocean {3.5 C} warms the mostly cold Earth, geothermal heat is far more significant than the cargo cult imagines. And if land ground was than warmed, land cool earth more than it does.
Or as general rule, I say ocean warms, and land cools, and land would cool even more without having the geothermal heat.
LikeLike
‘One could argue against geothermal heat warming Earth being “significant”, because Earth is not uniform temperature.’
Why would geothermal need to be uniform?
Don’t confuse a simple model for exact detail.
LikeLike
–‘One could argue against geothermal heat warming Earth being “significant”, because Earth is not uniform temperature.’
Why would geothermal need to be uniform?–
I am saying Earth is not a uniform temperature.
There are obvious reasons why Earth doesn’t have uniform.
Canada is cold and major factor why it’s cold is Canada doesn’t get much sunlight {particularly during the winter}.
I don’t think Canada is cold because it has smaller amount of geothermal energy. I don’t know what Geothermal map of Canada is. I am aware of Canadian Govt, and would be surprised Canada has adequately mapped it
I see if I am wrong, that 1) Canada has low levels of geothermal energy and 2) Canada has manage to map the country.
Meanwhile here is a US geothermal map:
http://blog.google.org/2011/10/a-new-geothermal-map-of-united-states_25.html
So roughly has range of 35 mW per meter to about 100 mW per meter
1/2 country is fairly uniformly emitting on low end, and West of US is much higher level {near 100 mW} and considering that warmer area has a super volcano below it, that not surprising. Canada lacks any super volcano that I know anything about. Though lots hot springs up there and maybe there super volcano or large region which volcanically active. But if Canada lacks a super volcano, I don’t think that is the reason it’s average air temperature is about minus 3 C.
Oh I see edge warmer spot just below BC, Canada. Probably it related those hot springs I am thinking about.
And in California near the fault it’s warmer, and can’t say know why New Mexico is warmer.
Going to see if Canada got one. They crazy about global warming and alternative energy up there- they should have a map
LikeLike
“I don’t think Canada is cold because it has smaller amount of geothermal energy.”
Well it does. My article “Measuring Geothermal – A Revolutionary Hypothesis” tells you average geothermal by latitude. The difference is caused by the geotherm being more oblate than the surface. And the cause is ROTATION.
Look, gbaikie, I have developed a clear picture of reality. It is better than all alternatives. Neither the GHG theory or the N&Z theory can explain temperatures underground. I understand my critics will nitpick all sorts of useless details, and they’ll all still be wrong.
LikeLike
“Well it does. My article “Measuring Geothermal – A Revolutionary Hypothesis” tells you average geothermal by latitude. The difference is caused by the geotherm being more oblate than the surface. And the cause is ROTATION.”
“An equatorial bulge is a difference between the equatorial and polar diameters of a planet, due to the centrifugal force exerted by the rotation about the body’s axis. A rotating body tends to form an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere.”
Are talking something other than equatorial bulge.
Assume you are. So, is there any evident of “geotherm being more oblate”.
It seems to me plate tectonic theory has clear explanation of why there is more geothermal heat is certain regions.
Are adding something to plate tectonic theory, or disputing it?
LikeLike
Yeah, you’re not understanding what I’m saying.
LikeLike
“Look, gbaikie, I have developed a clear picture of reality. It is better than all alternatives. Neither the GHG theory or the N&Z theory can explain temperatures underground.”
As know know I don’t support either the GHG theory or N&Z theory.
Nor have met many people who actually do- many believers, but no one gives argument to support either.
A major problem with GHG theory or N&Z theory is they are explaining, rather having the theory allowing predictions
to be made, and then confirmed or not.
I know one person who trying to make N&Z theory “explain” glaciation and interglaciation periods- I have not heard of any success so far. It was one objection mentioned at some point about the N&Z theory.
I am not really interested global climate. But I do think geothermal heat might or could explain our Ice Age.
And would happy if you prove that we have never had any snowball earth’s – because dislike that silly myth.
Anyhow, since we failed to explore our ocean, adequately, does our theory predict where there could more geothermal heat in ocean, that has yet to be discovered?
Many have already imagined there more will be found in Arctic ocean. Somewhere else, maybe. Or how much will they we find in Arctic ocean.
LikeLike
Well Canada seems to have map:
https://www.pikpng.com/pngvi/hJiboRi_geothermal-power-map-canada-geothermal-energy-used-in/
Apparently no super volcano in Canada and
“Canada has five potentially active volcanic areas, all of which are located in British Columbia and the Yukon Territory: the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt of southwest British Columbia (the northern extension of the American Cascade Arc) the Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field of east central British Columbia.” and:
–People also ask
Is Canada safe from Yellowstone?–
Answer, mostly not- except in eastern Canada {maybe ok}.
Though I would say Northwest Territories probably ok, but most Canadians live within 200 km of US/Canadian border.
So similar, warmer geothermal in western region {and near pacific rim- plate boundary}.
Anyhow Yukon is not known for being a warm place, but probably has lot of hotsprings {I would guess}.
Why just guess: “Takhini Hot Pools is one of the most visited locations in the Yukon. The hot springs have been in operation for over 100 years. Our hot springs pools are a relaxing 36° and 42° Celsius, with water entering the pool at 47 degrees.”
Not lots but at least one.
Imagine it being at minus 50 C and being in the hot springs.
LikeLike
You still don’t understand what these maps tell you. There is an INFINITE set of profiles that have same geothermal heat flux: https://phzoe.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/geohf.gif
Are you still operating under the delusion that this is an emergent flux? If so, you have learned nothing from this site. Nothing.
LikeLike
gbaikie,
https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-norway/a-waterworld-of-volcanoes/1389148
LikeLike
[[[–“Look, gbaikie, I have developed a clear picture of reality. It is better than all alternatives. Neither the GHG theory or the N&Z theory can explain temperatures underground.”
As you know I don’t support either the GHG theory or N&Z theory.– {changed: As know know…- mistype}. And:
Yeah, you’re not understanding what I’m saying.]]]
So I don’t support any theory regarding global climate. But I thought about this a bit, I decided I should give “example”
of something in ballpark:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
Or decided to bookmark various climate models because I didn’t want forget how to find it, again. So I recently
bookmarked some and I plan to bookmark others in future. And it’s of one the few I have bookmarked, THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT it roughly agree with my view.
As type this I decided goggle: global climate THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT.
And above link is at top search list. And second is:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339396_Greenhouses_hot_water_bottles_cycles_and_the_future_of_New_Zealand_climate
Which seems to be someone. different: Willem Pieter de Lange from New Zealand
And first link appears to be: Stephen Wilde
I am somewhat familiar with Stephen Wilde
Anyhow, I can’t say really studied either, and as to Willem Pieter de Lange from New Zealand:
–Abstract:
The Greenhouse Effect acts to slow the escape of infrared radiation to space, and hence warms the atmosphere. The oceans derive almost all of their thermal energy from the sun, and none from infrared radiation in the atmosphere. The thermal energy stored by the oceans is transported globally and released after a range of different time periods. The release of thermal energy from the oceans modifies the behaviour of atmospheric circulation, and hence varies climate. Based on ocean behaviour, New Zealand can expect weather patterns similar to those from 1890-1922 and another Little Ice Age may develop this century–
And I would say, I don’t expect something like Little Ice Age to develop within this century- though I have no opinion on weather patterns for New Zealand.
Though a solar grand minimum could happen and I tend to think one could get severe cold weather as result- but tend to be thinking of the Northern Hemisphere- US, Canada, Europe and Russia could have significant cold weather patterns.
And right now, where living in Southern California is seem quite cold for this part of year- I going have bring in my potted dwarf lemon tree, or may die tomorrow.
After reading that PDF, it seems lack much which I consider interesting.
Stephen Wilde :
–Correcting the Kiehl Trenberth Energy Budget–
“AGW theory erroneously assumes that Thermals and Evapo-transpiration have a net cooling effect on the surface and so they have to uplift the radiative exchange at the surface from 222 Wm2 to 324 Wm2 and additionally they assume that the extra 102 Wm2 is attributable to a net radiative flux towards the surface from the atmosphere.”
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/correcting-the-kiehl-trenberth-energy-budget/
It’s kind of interesting, but not sure I agree. Rather I simply don’t think back radiation as a “energy” is anything real- unlike Geothermal energy- which is something, and is the issue {as far as I am concern} of how much.
Anyhow, I don’t think either are saying the temperature of entire ocean control global temperature.
As I do.
Though it seems everyone seems to aware this, but also it seem to be ignored- like an elephant in the room.
It sort of like, of course ocean temperature is connected to global temperature, but issue how it warm or it’s side effect
of a warmed atmosphere {and how does atmosphere warm}.
And as I said, geothermal heat is significant factor in ocean temperature.
Now you say, geothermal heating is about 5 C.
I cite what is known, which is, ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
So, what is your explanation of why ocean is about 3.5 C, which cooler than about 5 C.
Particularly when it’s regarded that the ocean have 75% of all volcanic activity {and is 70% surface area of Earth}
and estimate of average geothermal energy is higher in ocean as compared to on land surfaces. ?
LikeLike
“The oceans derive almost all of their thermal energy from the sun”
That’s wrong. The sun is not enough.
“Now you say, geothermal heating is about 5 C.
I cite what is known, which is, ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.”
Water density is greatest at 3.98C. Therefore the bottom of the oceans can’t be 3.5C. Are you sure a bad model is not substituting for data?
LikeLike
“Water density is greatest at 3.98C. Therefore the bottom of the oceans can’t be 3.5C. Are you sure a bad model is not substituting for data?”
A common misconception, fresh water is densest around 4 C, not sea water.
And there deep ocean water around -1 C. And there -2 C sea water falling in Antarctic. Wiki:
“The Antarctic bottom water (AABW) is a type of water mass in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica with temperatures ranging from −0.8 to 2 °C (35 °F), salinities from 34.6 to 34.7 psu. Being the densest water mass of the oceans, AABW is found to occupy the depth range below 4000 m of all ocean basins that have a connection to the Southern Ocean at that level”
Wiki say -0.8 C, but it has been measured at -2 C.
Also what not generally known is warm salty water also falls, and different geographical conditions can make this more common- a some consider having more of this occurring when our world different {plate tectonics} could factor in warmer ocean temperatures. Or causes Hothouse global climates {50 or more million years ago} such PETM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
I tend tend think mostly volcanic, but currently around middle east region there is warmer salty water falling.
And it seemed to Willem Pieter de Lange from New Zealand also doesn’t understand why saltwater “resists” freezing- it’s because 2 C saltwater surface water, does sink, and replaced water water below it, Whereas freshwater fills up from the bottom water being about 4 C. Or once a lake has surface temperature 4 C and can’t fall, the surface can freeze.
And this why the average ocean temperature, controls global temperature. If higher temperature say 4 C, then you get less polar sea ice, and will have ice free arctic ocean in summer. If 5 C arctic ocean may remain ice free during winter. Or during PETM, one would not have polar sea ice. And you don’t get -20 C temperature that can get when you do have polar sea ice. Or warmer ocean polar regions is global warming.
LikeLike
No explanation what creates ocean temperature. The sun can’t do it. The sun is not enough. Not even close.
When you pour cold water into a borehole, the geothermally heated water goes to the top. The ocean cavity is not unlike a borehole. Think.
LikeLike
“No explanation what creates ocean temperature.”
In terms the 3.5 C ocean, I assume geothermal energy is major factor {as others are suggesting/suspecting**] but there is also cold water added from Arctic and Antarctic water – which has been poorly measured.
Got the amount polar cold water added, and geothermal heat heating and I consider that both have NOT been adequately measured.
I have a guess { Or idea/”theory”} that the flow of cold water from arctic is reduced when it’s blocked by formation Greenland ice shelves.
[Or there are some other ways that the ocean conveyor belt is somehow slowed down. I have long considered that mixing ocean causes global warming, but it could be the opposite, that instead, ocean stagnation could allows build up geothermal heat in the Ocean. And could be both- stagnation could be long term thing {ten of thousands of years- and mixing is a few centuries} Anyhow, it’s about the ocean, and the focus has wrongly has been largely about the atmosphere {and the crazy obsession of very minor trace gas}]
** https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1998.tb06333.x
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2008GL036078#:~:text=Geothermal%20heating%20contributes%20to%20an,Sv%20(33%25)%2C%20respectively.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFM.T33G..01E/abstract
LikeLike
“I assume geothermal energy is major factor”
You’re on the right track.
The sun can’t provide 17C or even 3.5C.
The Earth is not a dead rock wholely dependent on external energy. The idea that it is is the largest scandal in science.
LikeLike
“The sun can’t provide 17C or even 3.5C.”
That seems about right.
In terms explanation {proof}.
The atmosphere has specific heat of about 1000 joules per kg per K
Seawater has specific heat of about 3850 joules per kg per K
“Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10^21 kg ”
Or the heat to warm atmosphere by 1 K is about 1/1000th of heat to warm ocean by 1 K
During + million year of our Ice Age, the ocean has remained in the temperature range of about 1 to 5 C and
currently, our ocean is about 3.5 C.
If our ocean was 2 C, the ocean global average surface temperature {I would say} could not warm as much 17 C due to solely to sunlight {and greenhouse gases}.
And believe geothermal heat causes a significant amount warming to our ocean
and seems there are factors that cause the ocean to cool and I don’t think it due to less geothermal heating of the ocean.
I do think Earth can have more geothermal heat added to the ocean than we currently have, but have no evidence that less geothermal is responsible for cooling ocean below our current average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Though if it’s true that the level of Geothermal energy has been “about the same” for last 5000 years, it’s my opinion that ocean has cooling for about 5000 years.
And if geothermal energy remains “about the same” it possible the ocean could continue to cool over next 5000 to 10,000 years- due geothermal heat being “about the same”. But the interglacial and glaciation periods seem to follow or correspond with the Milankovitch cycles**.
Unless Milankovitch cycles somehow affect output of ocean geothermal energy {it is possible- or there are theories/ideas claiming this} then due to mere randomness, it does not indicate this would be the case.
Or in short, I believe Geothermal energy is responsible for Earth ocean not getting colder than 1 C, and plays a significant role in causing ocean to warm as much as 5 C during our Ice Age.
** wiki: “The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in characteristics of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Each cycle has a different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other and at other times they (partially) cancel each other.
There is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. ” {I don’t always agree with Wiki- but this is broadly accepted- and I also accept it}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
LikeLike