Global Warming: For Experts Only

https://www.skepticalscience.com/underground-temperatures-control-climate.htm

Q
Climate Myth...

Underground temperatures control climate
"There are other possible causes for climate change which could be associated with solar activity or related to variations in the temperature of the liquid core of the Earth, which is about 5,400 degrees Celsius. We don't need a high heat flow - just a high temperature for the core to affect the surface climate. There is massive heat inside the Earth" (Doug Cotton)
UQ


What influence do underground temperatures have on climate?

What the science says...

The flow of energy outwards from the interior of the Earth is 1/10,000th of the size of the energy flow from the Sun. Furthermore, over the past few million years, the heat flow from deep in the Earth has also remained very steady compared to other climatic factors. Heat from the bowels of the Earth does not influence climate in any significant way.

Consider:

The center of the Earth is at a temperature of over 6000°C, hotter than the surface of the Sun.

We have all seen pictures of rivers of red-hot magma pouring out of volcanoes.

Many of us have bathed in natural hot springs.

There are plans to exploit geothermal energy as a renewable resource.

Common sense might suggest that all that heat must have a big effect on climate. But the science says no: the amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is actually very small and the rate of flow of that heat is very steady over long time periods. The effect on the climate is in fact too small to be worth considering.

The Earth’s heat flow

Where does the heat come from?

There are radioactive elements in the Earth, mainly potassium, uranium, and thorium, that have long half-lives. When their nuclei decay, they give off heat, as in a nuclear reactor. Some researchers say that "the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes", while other scientists claim that "heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux". More here.

The Earth is still hot from the time the planet formed from the agglomeration of smaller bits and pieces. Even more heat was gained as the high-density materials, such as iron and nickel, subsequently separated out and formed the core of the Earth.

The mostly solid, rocky outer layers of the Earth, the crust and mantle, have low thermal conductivity, acting as a thermal blanket slowing down the passage of heat to the surface. In the very early stages of the Earth’s history, internal temperatures and heat flows were probably much higher than they are today, partly because the planet had only just started to cool, and partly because the energy flow from radioactive decay was much larger then.

How does the heat get to the surface?
convectioncellssmall.jpg
Figure 1: Showing mantle convection cells, which are responsible for transporting most of the Earth’s heat from the interior to the surface. Wikipedia

oceancrust.jpg
Figure 2: Red indicates the oceanic ridges where mantle convection comes to the surface and where new ocean crust is formed. The colors indicate the age of the oceanic crust, with the purple being the oldest. Source.

How do we measure heat flow?

heatflowmap.jpg
Figure 3: Heat flow at the surface of the earth, from Davies and Davies (2010). Heat flow units are in mWm-2. Note how the areas of highest heat flow follow the mid-ocean ridges. The largest areas of measurement uncertainty are along the very crests of the ridges and under the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The total heat flow for the planet is 47 TW +/- 2TW, which is equivalent to 0.09Wm-2 (90mWm-2).

How does heat flow from the interior of the Earth compare with other inputs of energy into the climate system?

4_EnergyInputsToClimateSysem.jpg
Figure 4: The volumes of the cubes are proportional to the magnitude of the energy flow from various sources. The solar irradiance is the incident energy, averaged over the area of the Earth (divided by four); irradiance varies over 11 year cycles and, at the top of recent cycles, can reach 341.7 Wm-2. The increase in anthropogenic forcing since pre-industrial times comes from the IPCC. The heat flow from the Earth’s interior is the 47 TW figure (see Figure 3 caption) averaged over the surface area. The energy flow from the human energy production is based on Flanner (2009). Tidal energy is the total energy input from the gravitational interaction between the Earth, Moon and Sun; a small part of this energy is included in the energy flow from the Earth’s interior (see below for further discussion).




Tidal Energy

munkwunsch.jpg
Figure 5: From Munk and Wunsch (1998) showing an “impressionistic” (their word) budget of tidal energy fluxes.

Science isn’t always common sense


For example, on this figure, a line representing geothermal energy flow would have a thickness of 6 microns, the thickness of a strand of spider-web silk; ocean tidal energy, one-tenth of that; Earth tidal energy less than one-tenth even of that. Our intuitions tell us that earthquakes, volcanoes, geysers and tides are mighty forces of nature and, in relation to a human individual, they are. But compared to the transfers of energy within the climate system, they are too puny to merit consideration.

Last updated on 19 September 2011 by Andy Skuce.
Figure1.png
Figure 6. The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for 2000 to 2005 (W m–2). The widths of the columns are proportional to the sizes of the energy flows. From Trenberth et al (2009).

Q
Comments 1 to 1:

william at 06:12 AM on 19 September, 2011

Clearly, the heat from inside the earth does not have any effect on the weather or the climate in the sense that this article explores. However, the heat from the earth may possibly have a contributory effect on ending a glacial and nudging us into an interglacial. In that sense, it would have a major effect on the climate. See:
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/continental-glacier-meltdown.html
William

UQ
 
Last edited:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/underground-temperatures-control-climate.htm

Science isn’t always common sense


For example, on this figure, a line representing geothermal energy flow would have a thickness of 6 microns, the thickness of a strand of spider-web silk; ocean tidal energy, one-tenth of that; Earth tidal energy less than one-tenth even of that. Our intuitions tell us that earthquakes, volcanoes, geysers and tides are mighty forces of nature and, in relation to a human individual, they are. But compared to the transfers of energy within the climate system, they are too puny to merit consideration.


Figure 6. The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for 2000 to 2005 (W m–2). The widths of the columns are proportional to the sizes of the energy flows. From Trenberth et al (2009).
Figure1.png


In the Global Energy Flow above, it seems the significance for the Net Absorbed 0.9 Wm2 could be relatively small when comparing to other sources (one is −12 .6 by JRA) as further mentioned below.

Question 1:

This 0.9 Wm2 includes the effects by all the GHG (Greenhouse Gases), without analysing how much is/was mainly due to CO2.

Question 2:

When several other measures are valued at over 100 Wm2, just 1% error would significantly override the positive value of 0.9 Wm2 figure, fairly easily. The author did not mention this possibility at all, objectively.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf


" We also apply a uniform scaling to albedo such that the global mean increase from 0.286 to 0.298 rather than scaling ASR directly, as per Trenberth (1997), to address the remaining error. Thus, the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W m −2 (about 0.5 W). "

...

Table 2a.

Global

NET down

ISCCP-FD

-

NRA

1.3

JRA

−12 .6

This paper

0.9
 
Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg


https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-cycle
24020-004-9A925367.jpg



114419-004-AB283CED.jpg


http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2015-11-30/the-carbon-cycle-short-and-long/6973710
carbon-cycle-data.jpg


carbon-cycle-data.jpg


https://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/index.html
global_carbon_cycle_1427132279.jpg



https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/image_maps/3-carbon-cycle
Carbon-cycle20160930-22732-cmhfg2.jpg
"Explore this interactive diagram to learn more about the carbon cycle. Click on the different labels to view short video clips or images about different parts of the cycle."


Q
Atmosphere
750 billion tonnes of carbon

Carbon in the atmosphere is mostly in the form of carbon dioxide with some methane and hydrofluorocarbons. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

Acknowledgement: NASA.
Vegetation
600 billion tonnes of carbon

Plants store carbon as carbohydrates made from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Land plants take up about a quarter of all carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.

Acknowledgement: Public domain.
Soil and organic matter
1,600 billion tonnes of carbon

Soil contains a lot of carbon in the form of dead plant material and in the many bacteria and other small organisms that live there.

Coal, oil, gas
3,300 billion tonnes of carbon

Carbon has been locked up in fossil fuels, built up from once-living things, for millions of years.

Acknowledgement: Public domain.
Sediments and sedimentary rock
1,000,000,000 billion tonnes of carbon

The carbon cycle overlaps the rock cycle. Ocean sediments and the rocks they turn into contain huge amounts of carbon. This is mostly in calcite and limestone.


Ocean surface
1,000 billion tonnes of carbon

Exchange of carbon dioxide between the ocean and the atmosphere takes place at the surface.

Acknowledgement: NASA.
Deep ocean
40,000 billion tonnes of carbon

Most of the carbon entering the ocean ends up in the deep ocean where it can be carried by currents for hundreds of years or be lost in sediments.
UQ
 
Carbon dioxide flux over China, measured by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon oservatory-2 satellite. Image: NASA

The job of monitoring Earth’s carbon cycle and humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions is increasingly supported from above, thanks to the terabytes of data pouring down to Earth from satellites.
https://blogs.csiro.au/ecos/carbon-cycle/
earth-obs-carbon.png



Below: Interesting when looking at the right-hand side surrounding Japan and further left??? Also the spot just above NZ???

Where do these two spots located in the middle of oceans come from???

https://theconversation.com/watchin...studying-earths-carbon-cycle-from-space-72344
PIA18934~orig.jpg

Average carbon dioxide concentrations, Oct. 1 - Nov. 11, 2014, measured by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite. NASA

image-20170403-21960-y6qai5.png

Recorded starting in 1958 by the late geochemist Charles David Keeling, the Keeling curve measures atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Scripps Institution of Oceanography

image-20170403-21966-1bz553b.jpg

Geostationary satellites like Geo-Carb and the GOES weather satellites (shown here) are positioned over the equator at an altitude of about 36,000 km (or 22,300 miles) above Earth’s surface and orbit at the same speed as the Earth’s rotation, making them appear to stand still. OCO-2, like the Low Earth satellite shown here, samples a much narrower area. UCAR
 
Last edited:
Carbon-cycle20160930-22732-cmhfg2.jpg


https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/image_maps/3-carbon-cycle
"Explore this interactive diagram to learn more about the carbon cycle. Click on the different labels to view short video clips or images about different parts of the cycle."


Q
Atmosphere
750 billion tonnes of carbon

Carbon in the atmosphere is mostly in the form of carbon dioxide with some methane and hydrofluorocarbons. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

Acknowledgement: NASA.
Vegetation
600 billion tonnes of carbon

Plants store carbon as carbohydrates made from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Land plants take up about a quarter of all carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.

Acknowledgement: Public domain.
Soil and organic matter
1,600 billion tonnes of carbon

Soil contains a lot of carbon in the form of dead plant material and in the many bacteria and other small organisms that live there.

Coal, oil, gas
3,300 billion tonnes of carbon

Carbon has been locked up in fossil fuels, built up from once-living things, for millions of years.

Acknowledgement: Public domain.
Sediments and sedimentary rock
1,000,000,000 billion tonnes of carbon


The carbon cycle overlaps the rock cycle. Ocean sediments and the rocks they turn into contain huge amounts of carbon. This is mostly in calcite and limestone.


Ocean surface
1,000 billion tonnes of carbon

Exchange of carbon dioxide between the ocean and the atmosphere takes place at the surface.

Acknowledgement: NASA.
Deep ocean
40,000 billion tonnes of carbon

Most of the carbon entering the ocean ends up in the deep ocean where it can be carried by currents for hundreds of years or be lost in sediments.
UQ



Now the above data shows the one single source of problem would be " Sediments and sedimentary rock
1,000,000,000 billion tonnes of carbon

The carbon cycle overlaps the rock cycle. Ocean sediments and the rocks they turn into contain huge amounts of carbon. This is mostly in calcite and limestone.
" .

Then the logical solution could be fairly simple:

- How to treat the " Sediments and sedimentary rock " Long and Far before flowing/depositing into the oceans!!!

- Where are the humans and industries who make that?

- Why do they install special treatment plants to manage the problem?

- How should they collect, store and dispose the problematic after-treatment materials?

- Perhaps find a useful application for the after-treatment materials? Or dispose them to suitable places the scientists think fit? Burn them as alternative energy source? ???

- Plastic micro-beads must be banned worldwide!!! Only just in the US (already done)!
July Marks the Beginning of a U.S. Ban on Microbeads. What Are ...
https://www.newswise.com/.../july-m...-are-microbeads-and-do-they-affect-the-planet - Cached
5 Jul 2017 ... As of July 1, 2017, manufacturers must phase out plastic microbeads from personal-care products sold in the United States. What are microbeads? How do they affect our planet? Charlie Rolsky, an Arizona State University School of Life Sciences doctoral student studying microplastics, can explain. Charlie ...

Eight million tonnes of plastic are going into the ocean each year
theconversation.com/eight-million-tonnes-of-plastic-are-going-into-the-ocean-each-year-37521 - Cached - Similar
12 Feb 2015 ... You might have heard the oceans are full of plastic, but how full exactly? Around 8 million metric tonnes go into the oceans each year, according to the first rigorous global estimate published in Science…

No wonder that both sea Level and Temperature have been rapidly risen! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

- ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_organic_matter

Role in carbon cycling

Soil plays a major role in the global carbon cycle, with the global soil carbon pool estimated at 2500 gigatons. This is 3.3 times the size of the atmospheric pool (750 gigatons) and 4.5 times the biotic pool (560 gigatons). The pool of organic carbon, which occurs primarily in the form of SOM, accounts roughly 1550 gigatons of the total global C pool,[11][12] with the remainder accounted for by soil inorganic carbon (SIC). The pool of organic C exists in dynamic equilibrium between gains and losses; soil may therefore serve as either a sink or source of C, through sequestration or greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, depending on exogenous factors.[13]

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/ks3/gsl/education/resources/rockcycle.html
Rock%20Cycle%20all%20labels.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you did you would realize that whatever warming there is...is not global. Nor is it Anthropogenic....
Your 97% consensus is a fallacy.
And you just keep lying about it.


Yeah ok troll.


Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px.jpg

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 
Then the logical solution could be fairly simple:

- How to treat the " Sediments and sedimentary rock " Long and Far before flowing/depositing into the oceans!!!

- Where are the humans and industries who make that?

- Why do they install special treatment plants to manage the problem?

- How should they collect, store and dispose the problematic after-treatment materials?

- Perhaps find a useful application for the after-treatment materials? Or dispose them to suitable places the scientists think fit? Burn them as alternative energy source? ???

- Plastic micro-beads must be banned worldwide!!! Only just in the US (already done)!


No wonder that both sea Level and Temperature have been rapidly risen!

Plastic Microbeads: Ban The Bead!


Microplastics may be small, but they’re causing big problems for our environment and our health. These tiny pieces of plastic used in personal care products are designed to go down the drain and into our lakes, rivers, and oceans — by the billions every day. They absorb toxins in the water, are eaten by marine life, and can make their way up the food chain all the way to our dinner plates.

https://storyofstuff.org/plastic-microbeads-ban-the-bead/


Plastic microbeads absorb persistent organic pollutants (long-lasting toxic chemicals like pesticides, flame retardants, motor oil and more) and other industrial chemicals that move up the food chain when the toxic-coated beads are consumed by fish and other marine organisms. A single microbead can be up to a million times more toxic than the water around it![4]

4. Chelsea M. Rochman, Eunha Hoh, Tomofumi Kurobe & Swee J. Teh, Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress, Scientific Reports 3,Article number: 3263.

Microbead ban should include all products washed down the drain ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...products-washed-down-the-drain-say-campainers - Cached - Similar
8 Feb 2017 ... A proposed government ban on the tiny plastic beads that pollute the ocean should be extended to include items such as make-up, sunscreen and cleaning products.

3600.jpg
The planned ban currently only covers rinse-off items, such as shower gel, face scrubs and toothpaste. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

A poll from Greenpeace found that almost two thirds of people in the UK think microbeads should be banned. The beads are already banned in the US, but are still common in Britain. They’re a threat to marine life and potentially to humans, but the poll also found that most people don’t actually know what they are
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now not only fridges, but also washing machines - that Alone might be the real problem for AGW!

? http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory

How your clothes are poisoning our oceans and food supply ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads

20 Jun 2016 ... “These microfibers then travel to your local wastewater treatment plant, where up to 40% of them enter rivers, lakes and oceans,” according to findings published on the ... These plastic fibers have the potential to bioaccumulate, concentrating toxins in the bodies of larger animals, higher up the food chain.

...

But the washing machine industry is not yet ready to act. Jill Notini, vice president of communications and marketing for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, said the washing machine could very well be a source of microfiber debris, but that the proposed solutions are impractical.

“How do you possibly retrofit all of the units that are in the market and then add a filter in and talk to consumers and say, ‘Here is a new thing that you’re going to have to do with your clothes washer?’”

2592.jpg
 
" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households


Country Household population (people) Households Average household size (people) Year

China 1,367,820,000 455,940,000 3.0 2012[2]
India 1,200,536,286 248,408,494 4.8 2011[3]
United States 318,857,056 133,957,180 2.6 2014[4] "



updated-World-Population-Growth-1750-2100.png
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/

World-population-doubling-time-1.png
Probably Unstoppable in the near future, due to majority of new users of fridges and washers have been in China and India!

What the world should have done, by yesterday?????

Never too late!!!

Q
" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households


Country Household population (people) Households Average household size (people) Year

China 1,367,820,000 455,940,000 3.0 2012[2]
India 1,200,536,286 248,408,494 4.8 2011[3]
United States 318,857,056 133,957,180 2.6 2014[4]
United Kingdom 56,075,912 26,473,000 2.1 2011[10][11][12]"

UQ
 
Back
Top