Fourier is considered a direct predecessor to mainstream climatology. Mainstream climatology follows him and purposefully neglects geothermal energy in Earth’s energy budget due to the belief that it is too small. This then allows them to make the outrageous claim that it is IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere that boosts surface temperatures to what we measure with thermometers.
So is it true that geothermal is negligible?
According to Fourier’s translated 1827 paper:
The effect of the primitive heat which the globe has retained has therefore
become essentially imperceptible at the Earth’s surface …the effect of the interior heat is no longer perceptible at the surface of the Earth
– Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere, Page 15
Well that looks settled. Doesn’t it? Let’s see the whole context:
This is a very curious paragraph, for it admits too much.
The only way to melt ice is to provide at least 0°C worth of energy. Right?
0°C is not “negligible”, now is it?
I can already hear my critics saying: “But Zoe, he said over a century!”
Sure. It’s so marginally over 0°C, that it takes a century to melt 3 cubic meters of ice. So what? It’s still at least 0°C. And it’s coming from the Earth.
Fourier contradicts himself when he claims Earth’s internal heat is imperceptible. Is ice melting not perceptible? What if he chose dry ice? More perceptible. What about nitrogen or oxygen “ice”? Even more perceptible!
Is 0°C correct? What do modern geophysicists think?
Same thing! 0°C is still the convention.
The radiative equivalent of 0°C at emissivity=1 is 315.6 W/m²
Can this really be excluded from the energy budget? No.
What’s the significance of this?
It means the greenhouse effect is junk science. The surface has enough energy from geothermal and solar to explain surface temperatures.
I have two previous articles describing how the geothermal contribution can be computed more accurately using two different methods:
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/
It’s nice to know that the geothermal hypothesis was accidently scientifically supported by the very guy that unfortunately rejected it. A guy who modern academics follow uncritically. The answer was right beneath his feet, but unfortunately his head was in the clouds. Because of him, modern academics truly believe that it is the atmosphere that provides raw energy to the surface, rather than geothermal. What a colossal mistake. They flipped reality completely upside down.
While my critics like to claim that geothermal can only provide ~36 Kelvin because they applied Stefan-Boltzmann formula to the small conductive heat flux of 91.6 mW/m², actual scientists know that geothermal can melt ice. And this knowledge is 200 years old! When are climate scientists going to wake up?
-Zoe
Update 10/02/2020
My critics point out that Fourier meant to add that 318 mW/m² over a course of a century; 3 centuries by today’s known geothermal heat flux: 91 mW/m².
That’s not the point. The point was to expose Fourier’s own confusion over the difference between heat and energy. Fourier’s conduction formula applies to HEAT flow, not energy. 318 mW/m² or 91 mW/m² of total emissive energy will NEVER melt ice. But 318 or 91 mW/m² of HEAT flow might, depending on the temperature the ice is sitting on.
Bottom line: Did Fourier claim geothermal could melt ice? YES. Did he give a good explanation? NO.
Is Fourier a good choice to be a father of climate science? That’s a big NO.
But … since Fourier claimed geothermal could melt ice, I will take his word for it, because in this case he is absolutely right.
Zoe's Insights 
“The answer was right beneath his feet, but unfortunately his head was in the clouds” 🙂
Very good one. Thanks Zoe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sooo grateful for this. A competent oil engineer I debate keeps replying to thermometer readings with vague allusions to the extent of inaccessible glaciers sprawling over huge areas liberally sprinkled and underlain with decay-chain elements conveniently ignored.
LikeLike
“While my critics like to claim that geothermal can only provide ~36 Kelvin because they applied Stefan-Boltzmann formula to the small conductive heat flux of 91.6 W/m², actual scientists know that geothermal can melt ice.”
It doesn’t melt ice as well as warms water.
Because ice conduct heat better than water.
Or we should not have glacial ice in the world which is million year old if ice was a more poorer conductor of heat.
Ice (0 C, 32 F): 2.18 W/(m K)
Water: 0.606 W/(m K)
So, ice conducts heat about 3.5 times better than water.
Granite: 1.7 – 4.0 W/(m K)
[Ice conducts better than some kinds of granite and worse than other types of granite.]
Brick dense 1.31
Brick, fire 0.47
Brick, insulating 0.15
Brickwork, common (Building Brick) 0.6 -1.0
Brickwork, dense 1.6
Glass, window 0.96
Ice conduct heat better than brick or the glass of windows.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
When Fourier said could melt 3 meter of ice in century, I don’t think he allowing ice conducting the heat, rather just
referring joules of energy needed to cause ice to become water or 334,000 joules heat to melt 1 kg of ice.
3 cubic meter of water is 3000 kg. 3 cubic meter of ice is 934 kg per cubic meter, or 3 x 934 = 2,802 kg
times 334,000 = 935,868,000 joules per 100 years. 100 years = 3.154e+9 seconds
935,868,000 / 3,154,000,000 = 0.2967 joules per second or watt seconds or 296.7 mW [though will note, above it
said it’s 318 mW ]
So if had 3 meter ice AND stacked a whole lot insulation above the ice, then it would melt it in 100 years- though he is off, and so it would take about 300 years of joules of heat of geothermal energy.
Or about 1 meter of ice per century.
LikeLike
Uhuh.
I actually edited my original article which included a rebuttal to this type of argument. That was a mistake. Here’s the gist of what I took out:
Heat doesn’t work like that!
Perhaps over millenia we could melt steel?
How much energy from a cheap LED? Maybe if we accumulate joules from that we could also melt steel over time?
Can we cook a turkey by placing it in front of the TV? How much time is needed for that?
The south pole gets ~180 W/m^2 averaged throughout the year. Why is there still ice? Why doesn’t that 180 W/m^2 accumulate over time to melt the ice? Why would you think 318 or 91.6 mW/m^2 could do something that 180 W/m^2 can’t do?
You know the answer. This is silly. Geothermal provides at least 0C, or the equivalent of 315.6 W/m^2 (emis=1).
LikeLike
“The south pole gets ~180 W/m^2 averaged throughout the year.”
180 times 24 hours equals 4,320 watt hours per day or 4.32 kw hour per day.
South pole does not get 4.32 kw hours on average per day of sunlight, Nor does Germany. Nor Canada.
If they did, solar power might be useful in Canada or the south pole.
“Why doesn’t that 180 W/m^2 accumulate over time to melt the ice?”
The ice is always evaporating and condensing. You need about -150 C to stop ice from evaporating..
Coldness doesn’t have much to do with forming a glacier. It largely to do with snowing. And coldness can reduce snow fall.
Anyhow, you actually didn’t say how south pole gets 180 W/m^2, but if meant in form of sunlight, it doesn’t, they other ways to add joule of heat to south pole- such warmer transported air and latent heat from water vapor. But if meant warmer air and latent heat, then that sort of explains why you have ice at south pole.
Or Canada’s average temperature is minus 4 C- why isn’t covered by glaciers? Answer given above- it’s not mostly about temperature or amount sunlight.
But I can ask you question why is Antarctica glacial ice somewhere around -40 C and Greenland about -30 C {it can much colder in either one}. Or if “Geothermal provides at least 0C” that is impossible.
But “Geothermal provides at least 0C” doesn’t have meaning unless one is including insulation.
Or if had same geothermal energy as on Earth being on Moon it’s not going 0 C at the surface of Moon.
So if dig deep enough on Moon, you can find the same geothermal energy as on Earth and then can use super conducting material to bring this “Earth geothermal energy” to the lunar surface. And if you did, it’s not going to be 0 C {unless it’s insulated it so it would not radiate into space}.
LikeLike
re-visit this: “While my critics like to claim that geothermal can only provide ~36 Kelvin because they applied Stefan-Boltzmann formula to the small conductive heat flux of 91.6 W/m², actual scientists know that geothermal can melt ice.”
Your idiot critics could right if talking about being in vacuum of space {like the Moon} and if not having any insulation- btw “everything” has some insulation. So they could mean if had “ideal conductive blackbody” or something that does not exist in this universe, other than in imagination “scientists”. Or said it’s ideal or perfect or could not work better {in theory}.
Diamond and plasma and whatever can work “pretty good”. For mortals, copper and silver work good enough for most purposes.
LikeLike
No insulation can increase the real time INTRINSIC quantity known as temperature. Molecules do not move more vigorously because you blocked them with something else. FACT. The output will never exceed the input.
Now of course insulation does prevent LOSS. But saving loss is not a gain. It’s not a gain over the input.
This whole thing is ridiculous. The conductive heat flux (CHF) has a vertical component. It’s not in the same plane as an emitting surface, and so you can’t use SB Law on it.
https://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
LikeLike
‘Or if “Geothermal provides at least 0C” that is impossible.’
0C is the convention for a global AVERAGE.
It actually varies. You can see it by latitude here:
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/
Strange, I don’t know where I got the 180 figure, but it’s actually ~21 W/m^2. Same argument though.
The moon’s internal energy near the surface is ~105K.
Stop nitpicking. You know you can’t add up joules over a period of time and then claim a temperature rise.
LikeLike
“No insulation can increase the real time INTRINSIC quantity known as temperature. Molecules do not move more vigorously because you blocked them with something else. FACT. The output will never exceed the input.”
So you heat up ball of steel. Say, 4″ radius sphere of solid steel. Put it furnace, heat it until it glows orange, then remove it from the furnace. You can NOT make the ball of steel hotter by surrounding it with insulation, but can make the ball steel cool quicker or slower.
Now, lets another 4″ radius sphere of solid steel, but going heated by having radioactive material in it. Say designed to have a near constant energy output for 100 years. And if sphere on brick in 20 C air, it’s surface temperature is designed to be about 100 C. If instead put sphere in 20 C water, it will have lower temperature. But whether it’s in air or water, the sphere will have constant energy output {as the energy depends radioactive decay which is constant – the material 1/2 life doesn’t alter due being in water or air].
Earth is like steel ball heated in furnace, and its heated radioactive decay, and tidal heating and {plus even other factors}.
But We {or I } are not talking about making the huge hot rock of Earth warmer or cooler, instead dealing the heat gradient of Earth crust.
So get hot 4″ radius sphere of solid steel out of furnace and put clay around it. The hot ball will dry and harden the clay around the steel ball and say it’s 1″ thick. So, what expect to have is the hot steel ball should have fairly uniform temperature, and some point it’s about 200 C and surface of clay on outside would be cooler than 200 C.
Now go over some perhaps some unrelated facts, because made 4″ radius sphere into 5″ radius sphere, I have increase the surface area and not increase amount energy which would be emitted. Or if wrapped cold steel 1″ inch it’s same thing- increase surface area and not added heat.
But main point is the clay doesn’t conduct heat as well as steel.
Another note, is because using small scale, I am effectively dramatically increasing the heat conductivity all material {compared to full scale earth}.
Oh, how about put the clay encased steel sphere back in the furnace, leave it there until steel heats up by 50 C, so 250 C, then take out again, and wait for it steel to cool back down to 200 C. So when take it out the clay much hotter than steel and cools down, and when steel ball is 200 C, the clay surface should be cooler then steel “core”.
Now, if put some insulation on clay on part of surface, I expect that part clay surface which is insulated will become warmer compared to clay surfaces not insulated.
And top that insulation will cooler than the clay surface.
LikeLike
Is a vacuum [of space] the best or worst insulator?
If you think the Earth constantly emits ~240 W/m^2 to space (not just moon and satellites, i.e. matter) then you think a vacuum is the worst insulator.
Also, are you treating 20C as a fixed given? Why?
Many [stupid] people have suggested that cold determines the gradient. The insulated material will be held at a fixed given temperature on the outer side.
I usually mock them by saying:
Are you suggesting a frying pan on a hot stove will be room temperature on top and then a gradient will form from hot to cold?
LikeLike
–Is a vacuum [of space] the best or worst insulator?
If you think the Earth constantly emits ~240 W/m^2 to space (not just moon and satellites, i.e. matter) then you think a vacuum is the worst insulator.–
I believe Earth emits somewhere 240 watts per square meter and I generally don’t think of a vacuum as worst insulator- so seems like a bad guess on your part. But I am wildly guessing you have an opinion that Earth doesn’t emit 240 watts per square meter and a vacuum and isn’t the worse insulator.
As general issue, it seems a lot people imagine the vacuum of space is cold, but for mammal human, it’s problem in vacuum [other lack of pressure} is the vacuum results it being better insulator than then it’s accustomed to.
So, it’s possible to somewhat reasonable worry about the space environment offering barriers to larger human civilization in the space environment related to cost of getting rid of waste heat. Or some say if Earth population was over 100 billion, Earth have problem related to excessive amount of waste heat.
And in terms of Earth, apparently some people aren’t aware that we living in an Ice Age.
Some claim God gave us the Moon so we could be space faring species, likewise one could imagine that God gave an Ice Age, so we didn’t need to worry too much about the thermal management of Earth- were to have population over 100 billion.
Anyhow other some kind of God decree, I am not exactly sure why we living in one the coldest time periods in the history of Earth.
Now, maybe it could something do with lower amounts geothermal heat- particularly, in the last several million years.
Anyways, perhaps we could all agree that Earth emits the most amount energy per square meter, than compared to any other planet in our solar system?
And if we ever get to point of living in large sky of Venus, there will not be thermal energy management issue which limits it’s amount of population
LikeLike
Is whether geothermal is increasing relevant to climate change, even if it’s value relative to surface warming is considered small?
LikeLike
Very highly important.
https://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/
LikeLike
-Heat doesn’t work like that!
Perhaps over millenia we could melt steel?–
It pretty hard the insulate the heat loss of such temperature- though 100 miles of some kind of rock might be able to do it. But Earth is this hot so in theory, yes. And probably well over millenia.
But keep as short as possible also use more exotic material, like a aerogel {or even better stuff}. Wiki: “This aerogel has remarkable thermal insulative properties, having an extremely low thermal conductivity: from 0.03 W/(m·K)”
So if had aerogel say 100 meters thick, that should help quite a bit. So maybe 1 km of best kind of rock {whatever that is} and 100 meter of aerogel on top that, that could take less than 1000 years.
“How much energy from a cheap LED? Maybe if we accumulate joules from that we could also melt steel over time?”
Well if do 1 km thick rock and 100 meter of aerogel with Geothermal it depends wide it is, as heat will travel horizontally around it, if steel you wanted to melt was in middle of 10 km radius, it would have heat gradient from that middle point outward.
But can make LED melt and/or stop working if encase it with enough insulation? That seems quite likely.
A coil of extension cord which powered 60 watt lamp and this coil of extension on floor covered lots newspaper, will start fire.
It’s a bit runaway effect because hot electrical wires increase resistance if warmer and it’s just plastic insulation that has to melt and you get short. But that is what started a house fire,
So don’t have coil of extension buried under a fair amount insulation [like stacks of newspaper] and have it power anything.
Box lights with too much insulation will start fire:
“The recessed lights in my house are accessible from the attic, but there’s no insulation around them because it says on the fixtures that they need to vent the heat generated by incandescent bulbs. If I replace those bulbs with LEDs, will that reduce the heat enough so I can insulate around the existing lighting cans?”
Answer:
“While LEDs run much cooler than incandescents, their electronic components and external heat sinks do get quite hot; you would still need to keep the insulation away from your fixtures…..”
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/lighting/21195440/how-to-insulate-around-recessed-led-fixtures
LikeLike
I was talking about the light out of the LED, not the electricity that it directly receives.
No, gbaikie, you can’t just add up joules over time. You need real time intensity to cause chemical changes.
Delivering 36 kelvin for millenia to an object will cause that object to be 36 kelvin for millenia. There will never be some kind of accumulation that will cause the temperature to ever exceed 36 kelvin.
This is not rocket science. If you wave a rope for a year such that it’s amplitude is 1 meter high the whole time, you can’t add up its amplitude over time. That amplitude is analogous to temperature.
LikeLike
“Delivering 36 kelvin for millenia to an object will cause that object to be 36 kelvin for millenia. ”
That doesn’t mean anything. And is confusing. 36 Kelvin is friggin cold and little energy is involved with it,
And +36 K {or C} is different if it’s 36 K + 36 K or 300 K + 36 K.
Earth is mostly a very hot massive molten/very hot rock. And we living on very thin crust in comparison to entire
mass of hot rock. It’s fairly safe to say that over billion years, Earth the huge hot rock, has cooled a bit. Or losing
heat over long time, and that has “some” effect. It not 1 K cooling in thousand years but might be somewhere 1 K over million years {which would be enormous amount of heat lose].
Now interesting aspect of Earth geothermal could be related to explaining the “faint young Sun paradox”- wiki:
“The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch”
But I would turn that around, and say, we living with sun which has largest solar energy output {in it’s “evolution”] and it seems to me, it’s possible we living at the coldest period in Earth’s history.
Some people imagine Earth has had Snowball periods, but I would say the possibility of Earth having a snowball global climate +300 million or +700 million years ago, is as likely that Venus had ocean billions of years ago as both have very little evidence supporting such ideas.
So assume Venus never had ocean of water, maybe more water than at present- but we don’t even how much water it has currently- we don’t how much, Moon. Mars, or even Earth has. People talk about Earth ocean being not explored- well, Venus has been explored, far less. And only very limited sense is Moon explored more than our ocean- though it’s said our ocean is explored less than our ocean.
Anyhow, I think Earth has pretty good chance of being the coldest it’s ever been- and energy from sun being highest it’s ever been {both in terms of millions of years of time {not talking about something less than a century of time}}.
Anyhow, I think Earth climate is thousand to tens of thousands of year “thing” and as ocean takes such time periods to warm or cool. Or we have ocean of 3.5 C, because we had long glaciation periods {100,000 years periods} are periods of a colder ocean and build up of glacial ice. An interesting question regarding this, is where is oldest ice on Earth. And a question, which can’t really be answered, but ask anyhow, when has Earth ever had the oldest ice and how old could ever have been? Do we currently have the oldest ice, at any time in Earth history?
LikeLike
91.6mW/m2, not 91.6W/m2 I presume. Good article. Big fan of your Work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much 🙂
Fixed.
LikeLike
Zoe, thought you’d appreciate this.
.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=J4_wvZw3pqE&feature=emb_logo
Hope you can use it for something.
LikeLike
Don’t mind the comments though, people are getting scared and they should be. A global seismic event that could have been prepared for (to some degree) when everyone’s blowing money in the CC cash cow. I’d be upset too and scared.
LikeLike
After watching the glow of heat from a volcano at 35 km distance in the night, I’m very much aware of the fact that planet earth emits heat. Yes, subjective information, but very convincing once you experience it yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fourier was mocking the power of geothermal when comparing it to ice. But little did he know at the time what absolute zero was. Ice = 273K is not nothing. It’s quite significant, actually. And some places go way beyond that!
LikeLike
Maybe he should have known, since he was educated in the 1790s. But I guess information spread slowly back then..
LikeLike
Perhaps he thought that the sun’s shorterwave radiation can’t be ADDED to ice, but must override it. I’ve come across a critic of my theories that believes that too.
LikeLike
Your 335W/m2 is 3681 times larger than 91mW/m2, meaning that the energy stored inside the earth will be depleted 3681 times earlier than expected. Right? Have you checked that we shouldn’t be depleted already using your numbers?
LikeLike
Earth is hot, because of tidal heating {moon mostly} and it’s huge nuclear reactor, and because the formation of Earth caused it to have heat. And if accept idea the Moon formed by from a large body impacting Earth, wiki:
Giant-impact hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
Earth was heating a lot, and part of iron core is still falling into the core {and falling making more heat at this time}.
The 335W/m2 number is related the thought experiment call Steel Greenhouse. It is a fictional number.
LikeLike
No, gbaikie, the ~335 is derived from data. I derived that number in 2 ways. See “Deducing Geothermal” and “Measuring Geothermal – A Revolutionary Hypothesis”
LikeLike
As the top is cooled first, the vertical gradient changes, and so will the heat flux.
But that assumes Earth would actually emit 335 W/m^2 to space…
The Earth actually only cools to the moon (and man-made satellites a very tiny amount). Sound unbelievable? Wait till my article on that, later this month.
LikeLike
–No, gbaikie, the ~335 is derived from data. I derived that number in 2 ways. See “Deducing Geothermal” and “Measuring Geothermal – A Revolutionary Hypothesis”–
I look at it.
But you know Willis decided have planet with this geothermal energy, in regards to Steel Greenhouse- it is fictional in regards to Steel Greenhouse.
LikeLike
–Deducing Geothermal–
It’s not much difference than Greenhouse Effect Theory. They “modeled” found missing 33 K and claimed greenhouse gases caused 33 K.
I think planet earth completely covered with ocean would be warmer than the Earth only 70% covered with ocean.
And I think if Earth no oceans, it would be much cooler than it is.
So, you might agree with 100% ocean being warmer, and disagree my assertion 100% land would be much colder.
A fundamental aspect of climate is that tropical ocean is heat engine. So I would assume all land = no heat engine.
And it’s known the gulf stream warms Europe. Or the ocean is warming land.
The average temperature of Ocean is 17 C and average of Land is 10 C.
And we in an icehouse climate: which is polar icecaps and cold ocean.
We have ice caps and a cold ocean of about 3.5 C.
{Icehouse another term for Ice Age. And I like the term icebox rather than icehouse}
So, stop there and see if you agree or disagree with any of above.
Main point would idea of if Earth was 100% covered with land- would it be warmer or colder.
I say colder.
LikeLike
“It’s not much difference than Greenhouse Effect Theory”
No, it’s very different. They claim ~325 W/m^2 as back-radiation. I’m talking about 227.66 as front-radiation, and an additional ~107 to account for latent plus sensible heat. Together this is 335.
gbaikie, the ocean is not a heat source. Come to see things my way 🙂 :
The ocean is geothermally heated. The ocean is on average 3.5 km deep. It reaches deeper into the Earth and therefore gets much more geothermal than land! Water hotter than ~4C will then CONVECT to the top. Get it?
Pour cold water into a deep borehole. Where will the hottest water end up?
Yep, at the top!
Did the sun, GHGs, and tides do that? No!
I don’t think the ocean’s thermohaline is formed from the top down, but bottom up. OK, I mean beyond what the sun could do alone. I think that’s obvious.
LikeLike
Ah! Willis uses 235, not 335 🙂
LikeLike
Ok, right.
So upon looking at two blog posts, it seems this 335 watts geothermal heat is replacement of back radiation.
It seems to me people get weird ideas about back radiation when they go into a room.
So, going to have well insulated room and air temperature of room will be 80 F [27 C or 300 K}
{and 300 K which is blackbody in vacuum of space is suppose to radiate 459 watts per square meter per second.}
And on Earth in room which was say 4 by 4 meter and 3 meter high, the interior side of ceiling walls and floor are at 300 K. Ceiling and floor would be 4 x 4 = 16 square meter, totals 32 and a wall is 3 x 4 = 12 square meter, for 4 total 48 square meters. And room is total interior area of 80 square meter.
Let’s add this a temporary partition which 1 meter high and 4 meter long, each side has total 4 square meters and both side total 8 square meter. And the 8 square meter surface are 300 K.
That partition isn’t going to add any energy to the room, though if times 8 square meter by 459 watt one gets 3,672 watts. None of walls or ceiling or floor are causing any warmth. And is causing warmth is air temperature of room- if one warms the air, room and walls become warmer, cool the air, room and walls get cooler
Now, let’s have insulated ceiling be transparent. So, 3 meter by 3 meter window in ceiling and be using triple pane to decrease convectional heat loss thru this ceiling area. And if sun is directly over head sunlight can go thru the glass windows and warm the room. The sunlight would be about 1000 watt per square meter, with 9 square meter giving about 9000 watts of sunlight into the room. Roughly warm room as much as 9 1000 watt electrical heaters.
Though there differences. The sun’s intensity is such that it only heat to about 80 C. Whereas small electrical could heat to 400 C- if close enough to heating element. But in terms of warming room from 27 C to 37 C the sunlight get to that air temperature as quickly as the 9 1000 watt electrical heater. Or one boil some water with just one of heaters and sunlight {which is not magnified} can’t boil water. But magnified sunlight can heat something far hotter
than the heater can] – energy coming from the Sun which is 5,778 K- and magnified sunlight can not exceed 5,778 K.
backradiation can not warm the insulated room, and nor can this “335 watts geothermal heat” warm the room.**
But if you squint what you saying and even what backradiation believers are claiming is similar to my view.
What you seem to be saying is the geothermal energy provides base of warmth in which sunlight energy is added to.
And what I am say, is ocean warmth is a background in which energy of sunlight is added to. And geothermal energy is significant factor in warming the ocean.
And would say ocean warmth {this background/baseline temperature] has changed over the history of Earth. And because our ocean is current cold {rather than having a warmer background] we are in an Ice Age.
Or temperature of ocean during our Ice Age has varied within the range of 1 to 5 C, and our entire ocean temperature is currently about 3.5 C. And if ocean warms or cools by .5 C it’s big difference. And obviously 1 C change is even a larger difference, but 1 C change in ocean average temperature takes at least thousands of years.
Or Little Ice Age was a ocean cooling of about .2 C, and the warming since has been about .2 C, and in few centuries
might get as much as .5 C.
** nor can having an ocean which is 1 C warmer warm that insulated room.
LikeLike
“So upon looking at two blog posts, it seems this 335 watts geothermal heat is replacement of back radiation”
LOL, No. Geothermal provides the FRONT-radiation for the back-radiation. It’s not a replacement, it’s the raison d’etre.
What the climate psyentists are doing is measuring 522 W/m^2 radiating from a blanket covering you, and claiming that’s why you’re 37C.
The greenhouse effect is just geothermal minus (TSI*(1-0.3)/4).
The GH effect is just geothermal flipped up-side down minus the sun.
P.S. When the sun is out, land gets hotter than ocean water. So why is ocean water on average hotter? Water is warmed by deeper geothermal.
LikeLike
“The GH effect is just geothermal flipped up-side down minus the sun”. Shouldn’t you have written: “what appears to be a GH effect…..”?
LikeLike
Sure
LikeLike
–P.S. When the sun is out, land gets hotter than ocean water.
So why is ocean water on average hotter? Water is warmed by deeper geothermal.–
The sun heats a land surface the hottest, when the ground surface is dry and sun is near zenith- or during summer
and near noon time.
Suppose had sidewalk at summer at noon and it was 70 C.
And also if had some water which was 70 C, and then poured the 70 C water on the 70 C sidewalk, that 70 C water should lower the temperature of 70 C sidewalk.
Because it will have large evaporation rate at this temperature.
Or partial pressure of water at 25 C is 0.0313 Atm or 0.45976 psi and water at 70 C is 0.308 Atm or 4.5253 psi.
So the spreading water out over large area at 70 C will cause evaporation that should cool area rapidly.
Or a sidewalk that has water on it or still damp, can not get very hot in sunlight.
At 50 C water partial pressure is 1.7915 psi should evaporate at less half rate as 70 C water.
And sidewalk could be wet and be as hot a as 50 C. And shallow water or mud puddle also get to about
50C.
But with deep transparent ocean water, 1/2 sunlight heats top 1 meter and other 1/2 below the 1 meter depth
when sun is near zenith. Or only small portion of sunlight directly heats the top few inches of ocean water when sun is near zenith. And when lower in sky, the sun at lower angle will warm more of the water nearer the surface.
So low angle sunlight won’t warm horizonal land surface to high temperature, and heats to highest temperatures when at zenith. Whereas when near zenith sunlight heats to a deeper level under the ocean surface.
That. And water surface temperature is limited by evaporative heat loss.
But generally, the ocean absorb a lot more heat from the sun as compared to land surface and retaining heat during night causing to have higher night and day [and year] average surface air temperature.
LikeLike
gbaikie,
Read thoroughly: https://phzoe.com/2020/01/30/north-and-south-hemisphere/
“So low angle sunlight won’t warm horizonal land surface to high temperature”
Still more than water.
“the ocean absorb a lot more heat from the sun”
That’s irrelevant to peak skin surface temperature – which is what I was talking about.
LikeLike
–“So low angle sunlight won’t warm horizonal land surface to high temperature”
Still more than water.–
Perhaps, so. My point was brief time period of highest ground temperature and/or very highest land surface air temperatures.
Or people are supposed measure air temperature whenever it’s suppose to be the hottest. And also in the coldest night time temperature- which could not always as predictable.
In regard water at low angle {starting below 30 degrees] bodies of water become increasing more reflective.
Roughly, I would say sun’s at low angle when less 45 degrees and a high angle when sun 45 degree or higher and near zenith is about above 60 degrees above horizon {or less than 30 degrees away from zenith}.
And there a lot daytime of low angle sunlight occurring twice a day everywhere every day.
–““the ocean absorb a lot more heat from the sun”
That’s irrelevant to peak skin surface temperature – which is what I was talking about.–
You also asked:
“So why is ocean water on average hotter?”
I wasn’t certain what you meant. I assume meant average ocean about 17 C, but a temperature of 17 C or the 3,5 C of average of entire ocean, doesn’t seem hot. And ocean will get to about 30 C or almost lukewarm
But one can have land covered with snow and ice and with ocean surface much warmer- could call that hotter.
And personal experience is ocean skin temperature water can feel “hot” compared being uniform cold water of about 50 F {10 C}. Only foolish and bored kids try to swim in 50 F water {without a wet suit}. But it was “seared in my memory” the fevered wish that I could somehow be capable to swim in that very thin “hot” surface water. It probably at most 10 K warmer, but if water is 68 F it can be swimed in for say 1/2 hour fairly comfortably without getting too cold- though it’s assuming once get out water you have warm temperature and the hot sunlight.
The Finn apparently take brief 100 C saunas and then jump into the snow- and that seems similar enough to swimming in a 10 C ocean in the summer
LikeLike