Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26901 - 26920 of total 27950 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jammer

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 10:49am PT
The amount of energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun depends on the Earth's "albedo" which is usually set to be about 0.3, and the amount radiated depends on its emissivity, usually set to 1.

My only problem with this perception is that it somehow does not adequately state the interior of the earths role in determining surface temperature since almost no energy would be reflected back out to space if the interior was freezing cold, and a lot would be reflected back out to space if the interior was burning hot. The energy balance we see at the surface is determined as much by the interior temperature as it is by the incoming solar radiation, so I am just a little surprised climate scientists are not all over this, and instead act like the only thing we need to look at is solar radiation and greenhouse gasses.

It seems like a HUGE problem to get ones head around, so it would not surprise me if they are just now figuring out how to include it in any real quantified and meaningful way in their models. For all I know they have already included it, and the overall effect is negligible. I don't buy that explanation though on the grounds that only a little bit of the surface temperature is actually contributed by interior heat, since if the heat was not there at all the surface would be MUCH MUCH colder. The presence of the internal heat is what allows the solar radiation to have any significant surface warming effect at all. Otherwise it would all just get sucked into the earth.
raymond phule

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 11:06am PT
Jammer, to me it sounds like you would except a large difference in temperature response for a house that his heated by the sun if a mouse live in the basement and radiate some heat compared to the the same house without the mouse.

I don't have much knowledge about this but the scale of things really seems to indicate that the possibly effect is very small.
raymond phule

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 11:09am PT

The presence of the internal heat is what allows the solar radiation to have any significant surface warming effect at all. Otherwise it would all just get sucked into the earth.

Interesting comment... So a large rock don't get warmer if it located at a sunny place?

My guess is that you completely miss the dynamics of heat transfer through a medium.
jammer

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 11:20am PT
Jammer, to me it sounds like you would except a large difference in temperature response for a house that his heated by the sun if a mouse live in the basement and radiate some heat compared to the the same house without the mouse.

This perspective is a flawed analogy and as a result the insight/intuition gained from it will be fundamentally off.

The heat of the earth would be like the entire house being at say zero degrees F or 60 degrees F. If I then wanted to calculate the prospective effect of solar radiation, the temperature of the house would most certainly find it's way into the prediction equation and have a significant effect. Raymond, you seem to dispute this...
raymond phule

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 11:29am PT
I don't know if I dispute it or not because I really don't understand what you try to say.

I neither understand why my house example were wrong.

The heat transfer from the center of the earth to the ground is very small. The temperature of the ground in a sun less world would be much less than it is with a sun. Just take the temperature of the ground at night or winter.

I have no idea why the temperature of the core would do any difference when it is not the core that do the main heating of the ground and atmosphere.

To me it just seems to be a system like a house or rock with a very small heat source at its center being in connection with a much stronger outside heat source.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 1, 2014 - 11:30am PT
On a clouds-have-silver-lining note, writing my last comment inspired me to learn a bit more about borehole temperature reconstructions. Here are two graphs (20,000-0 ybp at top, 1,000-0 ybp below) of Huang et al.'s (2008) global reconstruction. There's that darn hockey stick, again.



Abstract
We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

By "reference level" they mean the anomaly base period 1961-1990.
jammer

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 11:55am PT

I neither understand why my house example were wrong.

IMO your house example is off because a mouse has a very small total net heat, whereas a house which contains heat (a few less degrees than the air around it lets say) has way more net heat. A house in which the surface of the walls of the house is just a few degrees less than the air around it but the inside of the walls get progressively hotter the deeper in the wall you go has yet more net heat.

If the interior of the earth contributes little to nothing to surface temperature then it is just a big available heat sink for extra heat then, right? Why would it not be absorbing the extra heat? The big cool house with the tiny mouse has lots of room to warm up.

If it is too warm to absorb more heat, then why would it be radiating heat at the same rate as when the atmosphere was cooler? What then determines the rate at which the earth radiates it's primordial heat?

It just seems like people in this thread are prematurely dismissing the idea that not all of the earths available surface energy, and therefore earths surface temperature, is determined only by or nearly entirely by incoming solar radiation. I'm truly curious if actual climate scientists do the same.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 1, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
I don't know if jammer is an idiot or an azzhole, but now that I am convinced he is one or the other, I have added him to my greasemonkey list.

Unlike Doc Ed, I have no patience with fools.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 1, 2014 - 12:40pm PT
Usokin (I believe if my memory is correct) has a very long paper on the state of understanding of solar processes. Refer to that TLP. Im not even going to hazard a guess. All I know is that there has been a number of solar cycles identified from the average eleven year schwab, through the Seuss, Devries, and to the approx thousand year Eddy cycle. During these longer cycles there is large variations in the proportion of the makeup of solar radiation and smaller, although prolonged, periods of total radiation varying by 2wm2 at one astronomical unit (the average of earths orbital distance). In about 2004-2005 solar scientists began noting a weakening of the major solar indices that is predicted to continue and grow even weaker over the next few schwab cycles. The makeup of the radiation reaching earth has changed and weakened, also the suns magnetic field which allows more atmospheric penetration of ionizing cosmic rays. I would say we are seeing a migration of the west pacific warm pool to the north pacific, attracted by the upwelling cold waters of the negative phase of the PDO. My question is what physical mechanisms would allow for this. I don't see you guys claiming there is a dense cloud of CO2 that radically increased downwelling IR over this vast region, not yet anyway. So what is causing the sea surface temps to spike here.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 1, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
the total energy coming to the surface of the Earth per unit time from the sun is:

P = (πR²) (1-A) S

where R is the radius of the Earth, A the albedo and S the "solar constant"

take the internal energy per unit time to be

I = (4πR²) C

where we'll take C to be the +0.06 W/m^2 of the heat flow from the Earth's interior.

The Earth radiates:

r = (4πR²) ε σ T⁴

where ε the emissivity, σ the Stefan-Boltzman constant (=5.67E-08 W/m^2/K^4) and T the temperature of the surface...

the total input is then set to be equal to the radiated output:

(πR²) (1-A) S + (4πR²) C = (4πR²) ε σ T⁴

which we can rewrite as:

(1-A) S/4 + C = ε σ T⁴

the solar constant (which we were debating up above) is 1360 W/m^2 so we can put all these things in:

[(1 - 0.3)*1360/4 + 0.06 ]W/m^2 = 1. * 5.67E-08 W/m^2/K^4 T⁴

(238 + 0.06) W/m^2 = 5.67E-08 W/m^2/K^4 T⁴

note that the 0.06 W/m^2 is small compared to the solar input...

solving for the temperature T we get:

T = 255 K

which would be the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere.

To change that by 1 K to 254K we'd have to set C = -2 W/m^2, that is, the heat flow would be into the interior of the Earth...

this represents a huge amount of energy being sucked into the Earth... the radius of the Earth is 6,378,100 meters the area of the Earth's surface is 5E14 m^2 so the heat is flowing in at 1E15 W

Using Kelvin's 1ºF/50 foot temperature gradient, and the 0.06 W/m^2 heat flow, the conductivity of the ground is something like 1.65 K/m/(W/m^2)

if the interior of the Earth were cool enough to suck 2W/m^2 into the Earth, changing the surface temperature by 1 K, the temperature gradient in the dirt would be -1.2 K/m, this would indicate that the crust 210 meters underground would be at absolute 0 K, the minimum temperature.

The point is, the Sun's energy overwhelms the Earth's interior energy.


raymond phule

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 01:20pm PT

I'm truly curious if actual climate scientists do the same.

You could read their papers or ask them?

Almost nothing you write make any sense to me but I am not an expert on heat transfer.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 1, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/labor-day-snow-alaska-wyoming-20140901



http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/09/01/if-all-you-see-1239/
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 1, 2014 - 03:23pm PT
Here we have fine examples of how a reasonable person, with questions about this issue gets treated.

True, a good portion of this exchange is civil and on topic..... and then there are the unwarranted personal attacks.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC

Aug 31, 2014 - 11:22pm PT

They don't call him Jammer for nothing. Any way you shake a stick at it their entire intention is one of subversion. If you are cut out of any possible involvement in the process as Jammer is, it is beholden of the adolescent male to do whatever is possible to sabotage that process by subversion, among the best is to feign interest to generate some sort of infantile energy sapping wild goose chase, the end result never intended to be productive.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Aug 31, 2014 - 11:28pm PT
jammer, you don't get it...

FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM

Aug 31, 2014 - 11:33pm PT

Huh? That's not just "out there"....

That's out past quasar country.

Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin

Sep 1, 2014 - 08:46am PT
You clearly don't like me for who knows what reason


Credit: Norton


Malemute

Ice climber
great white north

Sep 1, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
I don't know if jammer is an idiot or an azzhole, but now that I am convinced he is one or the other, I have added him to my greasemonkey list.

raymond phule

climber

Sep 1, 2014 - 01:20pm PT

I'm truly curious if actual climate scientists do the same.


You could read their papers or ask them?

Almost nothing you write make any sense to me but I am not an expert on heat transfer.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 1, 2014 - 03:51pm PT
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 1, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
That is your characterization of "reasonable" Sketch. however it is not reasonable when you ignore knowledgable explanation for your questions in favor of your own unknowledgable guess work.

But that is expected because it dosn't just describe Jammer, it also discribes you. I strongly suspect subversion on his part the same as yours based on that. There has to be a compelling reason to ignore good credible explanation in favor of something far less credible but you are all silent on that point, other than some vague assertion of ideological biasing widespread throughout the climate research community.

Anyway, I'm glad you finally caved and aknowledged my existence, which means you do in fact register what I say.

So what about it? Are you yourself biased by butt hurt? How exactly do you expect to make a judgement on all this stuff if all you got to go on is how it makes you feel? We know you dislike the discourse but how is that supposed to help you determine fact from fiction?

Do you trust the institutional consensus or not and why? No need to rely purely on your feelings for this one Sketch, unless of course you prefer it that way
jammer

climber
Sep 1, 2014 - 04:13pm PT
But that is expected because it dosn't just describe Jammer, it also discribes you. I strongly suspect subversion on his part the same as yours based on that. There has to be a compelling reason to ignore good credible explanation in favor of something far less credible but you are all silent on that point, other than some vague assertion of ideological biasing widespread throughout the climate research community.

No subversion here. I was truly curious about something. It took Ed a while, but he finally calmed down and participated in civil discourse. Thank you Ed :).

On that note, where does the 0.06W/m^2 figure come from? I can't find a good explanation of it online. What goes into making that estimate? How do they measure it?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 1, 2014 - 04:19pm PT
ok fair enough Jammer, like I said I was only guessing that about you based on some others and maybe my own biases are getting the better of me. Still, are you not getting some good plausible articulate explanation for your questions?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 1, 2014 - 04:46pm PT
you can calculate it yourself from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget

as I posted that link upthread...
perhaps you didn't look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget#Global_internal_heat_flow

"Estimates of the total heat flow from Earth’s interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 TW (TW = terawatt = 10^12 watts).[8] The closest estimate is 47 TW,[1] an average crust heat flow of 91.6 mW/m^2, and is based on more than 38,000 measurements. The respective mean heat flows of continental and oceanic crust are 70.9 and 105.4 mW/m^2.[1]"




I was truly curious about something. It took Ed a while, but he finally calmed down and participated in civil discourse. Thank you Ed :).

you decided I wasn't persecuting you for some reasons imagined only by you?

crunch

Social climber
CO
Sep 1, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
If the interior of the earth contributes little to nothing to surface temperature then it is just a big available heat sink for extra heat then, right? Why would it not be absorbing the extra heat?

It's neither.

What you are missing is that rock is a very, very poor conductor of heat. Transferring heat (no matter whether it is upward or downward) through rock (our crust) is a totally different matter to transferring heat through a gas (atmosphere) or even a liquid (ocean).

The core of the earth, 4,000 miles below, still maintains some insane temperature of around 5,000 degrees, having lost remarkably little heat over ~4 billion years.

Why is this? Heat is transferred in three ways: radiation, conduction, convection.

Conduction involves molecules being heated up, and as they heat up they move around. They bump into each other, transferring their energy onward and outward, like billiard balls striking each other. Rock is a very poor conductor of heat because its molecules are bound up, solid. They can't move very easily.

With rock, there's no radiation because waves of energy (think the UV that produces sunburn, or even basic visible light from the sun) are blocked by the solid rock.

Convection refers to actual movement of material. With the atmosphere, it's wind; with the oceans, it's currents. There is some convection of rock far below the surface (moving the various crustal plates around), but movement is incredibly slow. I've read that the mid-Atlantic is opening up at about the rate one's finger nails grow.

So, back to the short answer: Any effects that the Earth's interior heat has, heating or cooling the surface, is truly negligible, lost in the noise, compared to other effects.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 1, 2014 - 06:35pm PT
The closest estimate is 47 TW,[1] an average crust heat flow of 91.6 mW/m^2, and is based on more than 38,000 measurements.

And the average continental crust heat flow globally is around 65 mW/m^2 (oceans are higher, so the global average is higher as well). For the borehole temperature reconstructions I graphed upthread (and below), the original data from that particular set of borehole sites gave a mean heat flow slightly less than this, 60 to 64 mW/m^2. Huang et al. presented a set of 9 different curves, which I also graphed. These are paired combinations of 3 plausible heat flow parameters (60, 62 and 64 mW/m^2) with three plausible values of thermal diffusivity (0.9, 1.0 and 1.1*10^-6 m^2/s). It's simple but illustrates another way scientists routinely consider how uncertainty might affect their results.

Messages 26901 - 26920 of total 27950 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews