The coming Ice Age

[ZedMikey]

And just to be clear... we've had a value for the geothermal energy of the Earth for quite some time, and the generally accepted value is lower than the number I used in my calcs above. By about 25%.

 

[ZedMikey]

Oh... and for those that might prefer to compare power instead of flux...

The product of the 1.2*10^8 square kilometer disc and 1400 W/m^2 comes out to 182,000 terawatts from solar radiation. Compared to the 44 terawatts from geothermal.

 

[whatthe?]

Here we go again...

First off, there has ALWAYS been a consensus that the Earth produces heat. That about half of it is from radioactive decay is meaningless in the context of climate change. It comes to the surface the same regardless of how it is produced in the core of our planet.

As for it being "just another source of heat, besides the sun, that figures into the whole equation, and makes it all the more difficult to blame everything on vehicle and manufacturing emissions" blah blah blah... let's look at some numbers.

Let's see... per that article (and the numbers jive with other sources I've seen), the Earth's geothermal heat output is about 44 terawatts total. Given the Earth has about 5.1*10^8 square kilometers of surface area... we get about .08 W/m^2 of geothermal heat transfer at the surface. Again... on par with other numbers I've seen. The article states that about half of that (23 terawatts) is from radioactivity.

Now let's see... with a little math, we can turn the value for solar energy incident upon the Earth's surface, 1400 W/m^2, into a number we can really compare with our above figure. The surface area exposed to solar radiation is a disc with the diameter of the Earth. That disc would have an area of about 1.3*10^8 square kilometers. About a quarter of the surface area of the Earth, as we would expect. Now, we multiply those two to get total solar power incident on the sunlit side... and divide by the total surface area of the Earth to average that across the entire planet... we get about 343 W/m^2.

Now we can properly compare the magnitude of "just another source of heat, besides the sun" with that of that of the sun's heat. .08 vs 343... the sun provides about 4300 times more heat to the surface of the Earth than the stuff that article is talking about.

Still think it matters, Jay? :)

You just gave numbers,but is the amount the earth produces statistically significant? You would know, you can have a very small number and it can still be significant. "Climate change" is based on the idea that man is accelerating a very small change over a shorter period of time than would normally occur but "scientists" and politicians think it's very significant. I don't really care about climate change, it's just a huge political tool that's moved beyond any reasonable science.

 

[ZedMikey]

You just gave numbers,but is the amount the earth produces statistically significant? You would know, you can have a very small number and it can still be significant. "Climate change" is based on the idea that man is accelerating a very small change over a shorter period of time than would normally occur but "scientists" and politicians think it's very significant. I don't really care about climate change, it's just a huge political tool that's moved beyond any reasonable science.

It is an important factor in the Earth's energy balance, and it's nothing new. The article isn't about some recently discovered amount of heat being added to the system. It's about the source of an already known input.

The earth continuously generates about 44 terawatts of heat, according to measurements from approximately 20,000 boreholes all over the world. It's this heat, and how it affects substances in the core and mantle, that leads to the gradual motion of continents and the creation of the earth's magnetic field. Exactly how this heat is generated has been difficult to measure, since the inner layers of the planet can't be probed directly.

Scientists have long believed that the heat is probably from two major sources: "primordial" heat that's left over from the earth's fiery formation, and radioactive decay. Now, thanks to the study, they can put an amount on the latter source, with radioactive decay accounting for about 23 terawatts. The models suggest that all of this radioactive heat comes from the crust and mantle, since the heart of the planet is thought to contain only substances that are friendly to the nickel-iron core.

And, actually, "climate change" is based on the idea that man is creating a new climate forcing that not only has direct effects on the climate, but can also trigger self-sustaining cycles that can be even more dramatic. It isn't about "accelerating a very small change over a shorter period of time than would normally occur."


While I will agree that it has definitely become a political tool, I will disagree about it moving beyond reasonable science. What is unreasonable about the science behind it?

 

[whatthe?]

It is an important factor in the Earth's energy balance, and it's nothing new. The article isn't about some recently discovered amount of heat being added to the system. It's about the source of an already known input.




And, actually, "climate change" is based on the idea that man is creating a new climate forcing that not only has direct effects on the climate, but can also trigger self-sustaining cycles that can be even more dramatic. It isn't about "accelerating a very small change over a shorter period of time than would normally occur."


While I will agree that it has definitely become a political tool, I will disagree about it moving beyond reasonable science. What is unreasonable about the science behind it?

You just changed your statement, you told Jaydog "Still think it matters, Jay?" and now you're saying it does.
We're going to disagree on the definition of "climate change". I stand by mine, man is not creating a new climate at best we're influencing the one we have now. It has moved beyond reasonable science because there is now a lot of money and political ties invested in studying it. Once you add a lot of money and politics it's too difficult to keep bias out of it. It doesn't mean we quit studying but are extra skeptical of results and conclusions

 

[ZedMikey]

You just changed your statement, you told Jaydog "Still think it matters, Jay?" and now you're saying it does.

They have a consensus now, I don't have a problem with it, it's just another source of heat, besides the sun, that figures into the whole equation, and makes it all the more difficult to blame everything on vehicle and manufacturing emissions, which in turn makes it harder to pass carbon limit legistlation, which means we can keep some of our freedoms....for now :D

My "Still think it matters, Jay?" was directed at Jay's comment alluding to this being some new source of heat we didn't know about before. It isn't. We've known about it for a long time, we just didn't know how much of the energy was from radioactive decay.

Besides... I said it was important. I didn't say it was significant. :redneck: I don't know the details of the climate models being used these days, but I would bet the more complex models take the geothermal energy production of the earth into consideration.

We're going to disagree on the definition of "climate change". I stand by mine, man is not creating a new climate at best we're influencing the one we have now. It has moved beyond reasonable science because there is now a lot of money and political ties invested in studying it. Once you add a lot of money and politics it's too difficult to keep bias out of it. It doesn't mean we quit studying but are extra skeptical of results and conclusions

I didn't say we are creating a new climate. I said we are creating a new climate forcing. Rising atmospheric CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels is the new climate forcing (it also adds waste heat to the Earth... on the order of 10-15 terawatts... is that significant? :redneck:).

Skeptical is good, but you don't sound skeptical to me. You sound like you already have your mind made up (evolution/the big bang/anthropogenic climate change are all wrong). That's not being skeptical.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position. Misunderstandings are common on the internet, after all. :beer:

 

[whatthe?]

You are misunderstanding. Climate change-the climate has always changed, is man influencing it-likely, but what do we do about it? There's the real debate. Never said I don't believe in the big bang. Evolution-now that's a fun one and needs very big doses of skeptisism.

 

[ZedMikey]

You are misunderstanding. Climate change-the climate has always changed, is man influencing it-likely, but what do we do about it? There's the real debate. Never said I don't believe in the big bang. Evolution-now that's a fun one and needs very big doses of skeptisism.

My apologies. :beer:

Climate change: What do we do about it? That's not a debate I get involved in... I prefer the science, not the politics.

Big Bang: So, do you think this theory is scientifically sound?

Evolution: I reread some of your earlier posts about this... and again, you don't sound skeptical. To me, you sound like you're throwing out an entire theory (one of the scientific theories with the most evidence to back it up, I might add) because of a perceived flaw (which, I still maintain, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution). How do you think humans came to be, anyway?

 

[whatthe?]

I maintain the flaws (not percieved) have everything to do why it's not a valid theory and just a very protected one by the scientific community. The "evidence" has a lot to do with how the facts or data is interpreted but debating that just gets you in a link war. Let's hear what you think the big bang involves so we can see if we have the same idea. Mine is big bang-first there was nothing and then there was everything needed to get this universe started.

 

[ZedMikey]

I maintain the flaws (not percieved) have everything to do why it's not a valid theory and just a very protected one by the scientific community. The "evidence" has a lot to do with how the facts or data is interpreted but debating that just gets you in a link war. Let's hear what you think the big bang involves so we can see if we have the same idea. Mine is big bang-first there was nothing and then there was everything needed to get this universe started.

Well, then your big bang isn't the accepted scientific theory (just like your version of the theory of evolution :fawkdancesmiley:). The scientific theory in question doesn't explain the origin on the universe. It explains the development of the universe as we know it from a singularity.

 

[whatthe?]

Which is a big problem for both theories since they both cannot explain origins. Poof! Here we have something, we can't explain how it got here so we're going to say it doesn't matter but now we're going to study it using laws and logic (which we can't explain the origins of either). That's a pretty nice way to conduct science, dismiss what you can't explain.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Climate change: What do we do about it?

Make the extra CO2 go away :idea:

 

[CrustyJeep]

Which is a big problem for both theories since they both cannot explain origins. Poof! Here we have something, we can't explain how it got here so we're going to say it doesn't matter but now we're going to study it using laws and logic (which we can't explain the origins of either). That's a pretty nice way to conduct science, dismiss what you can't explain.

Jesus ***ty Christ... You don't dismiss anything. You study what you can and attempt to uncover data that might explain the origin.

I suppose you think Creationism explains the origin...?

 

[whatthe?]

Make the extra CO2 go away :idea:

We can't make it go away, it just can be in different places. Plants, the atmosphere, the ground. What would you propose, shooting it into space.:rolleyes:

 

[CrustyJeep]

We can't make it go away, it just can be in different places. Plants, the atmosphere, the ground.

No ****. Man you are just a fountain of insight :lol:

In the ground has worked fine for many many millions of years.

 

[ZedMikey]

Which is a big problem for both theories since they both cannot explain origins. Poof! Here we have something, we can't explain how it got here so we're going to say it doesn't matter but now we're going to study it using laws and logic (which we can't explain the origins of either). That's a pretty nice way to conduct science, dismiss what you can't explain.

Science doesn't dismiss the questions of the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Many scientists are trying to answer those questions.

That doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution doesn't care where life came from. Like Crusty said before, we don't need to know how the first self-replicating molecules formed in order to explain the evolution of amphibians from fish. We also don't even need to know where DNA came from to explain how amphibians came from fish. We know how DNA works and that is enough for the theory of evolution. Do you need to know how your wrench was made to be able to use it to turn a bolt? Or to explain how it turns a linear force applied by your hand into a torque applied to the bolt?

Scientists studying abiogenesis don't care about the origin of the Earth.

Scientists studying the formation of the Earth don't care about the origin of the Milky Way.

Again, gravitational theory doesn't explain the origin of gravity. Germ theory doesn't explain the origin of germs. Atomic theory doesn't explain the origin of atoms. Plate tectonics doesn't explain the origin of the Earth and its plates.

 

[ZedMikey]

We can't make it go away, it just can be in different places. Plants, the atmosphere, the ground. What would you propose, shooting it into space.:rolleyes:

Actually... we can make it go away. It isn't particularly hard to break CO2 down in a chemical reaction.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Actually... we can make it go away. It isn't particularly hard to break CO2 down in a chemical reaction.

Of course, that costs money. It's an endothermic reaction, which means it takes energy, and energy isn't free. Yes, I'm Captain Obvious :D

But wait....... Isn't that what algae does just for kicks? :idea:

 

[ZedMikey]

Of course, that costs money. It's an endothermic reaction, which means it takes energy, and energy isn't free. Yes, I'm Captain Obvious :D

But wait....... Isn't that what algae does just for kicks? :idea:

Algae has some weird hobbies... :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[CrustyJeep]

Algae has some weird hobbies... :fawkdancesmiley:

So do I, and it just so happens that at least one of them involves putting carbon and oxygen back together again! Hmmm!

 

[ZedMikey]

So do I, and it just so happens that at least one of them involves putting carbon and oxygen back together again! Hmmm!

QUIT BREATHING! YOU'RE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[CrustyJeep]

QUIT BREATHING! YOU'RE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! :fawkdancesmiley:

But it's my favorite hobby! Big meany :booo:

 

[ZedMikey]

But it's my favorite hobby! Big meany :booo:

Ok, fine... but you should at least do it less... for the planet's sake! Think of the children!

 

[CrustyJeep]

Ok, fine... but you should at least do it less... for the planet's sake! Think of the children!

If I send some money to the government, can I breath normal?

 

[TreeClimber]

But it's my favorite hobby! Big meany :booo:

I'm an addict. Every time I try and quit, I fail!

 

[CrustyJeep]

I'm an addict. Every time I try and quit, I fail!

It's a disease. You should get SSI to pay for your air tax.

 

[ZedMikey]

I'm an addict. Every time I try and quit, I fail!

I've been air-free for 7 years now. It can be done, perhaps you need some help?

 

[CrustyJeep]

I've been air-free for 7 years now. It can be done, perhaps you need some help?

You should help whatthe. He's just wasting it :flipoff:

 

[TreeClimber]

It's a disease. You should get SSI to pay for your air tax.

I would, but I'm afraid the debt ceiling won't get raised, and the checks won't be forthcoming. Once branded a 'Breather', I'll be unemployable. Forever doomed to walk the netheregions between Bob and Junkyard Jim.

 

[CrustyJeep]

I would, but I'm afraid the debt ceiling won't get raised, and the checks won't be forthcoming. Once branded a 'Breather', I'll be unemployable. Forever doomed to walk the netheregions between Bob and Junkyard Jim.

Well, at least you can steal some air from the black helicopters :D