Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"the amount of heat flowing out from the Earth’s surface due to internal sources is about 45 trillion Watts. That’s about three times the total global human energy consumption."
"the amount of heat flowing out from the Earth’s surface due to internal sources is about 45 trillion Watts. That’s about three times the total global human energy consumption."
LOL. Nice pun, but what has really gone over heads is the significance of the change in estimated core temps.
If someone had commented that the energy used by humans had been under-reported by as much as 20%, there would be great concern by researchers as to how their calculations used to estimate climate change would need to be adjusted. I think most of us can agree to that statement, no matter which way our personal beliefs lean.
IF the article I cited is correct, and the core temp actually is almost 20% higher than previously thought, the change in global temps MAY be less attributable to human energy use. The correctness of that thought depends upon how the calculations currently being used were derived. If human energy use was being calculated backward from total temps LESS insolation to come up with a remainder, then the amount of that remainder attributable to geothermal energy would need to be revised upwards IF it was being calculated based on internal temperature and a given rate of conduction through the crust. It was more a musing of my own rather than a full "this is the way it is" statement, and upon reflection probably wasn't very obvious to others.
LOL. Nice pun, but what has really gone over heads is the significance of the change in estimated core temps.
If someone had commented that the energy used by humans had been under-reported by as much as 20%, there would be great concern by researchers as to how their calculations used to estimate climate change would need to be adjusted. I think most of us can agree to that statement, no matter which way our personal beliefs lean.
IF the article I cited is correct, and the core temp actually is almost 20% higher than previously thought, the change in global temps MAY be less attributable to human energy use. The correctness of that thought depends upon how the calculations currently being used were derived. If human energy use was being calculated backward from total temps LESS insolation to come up with a remainder, then the amount of that remainder attributable to geothermal energy would need to be revised upwards IF it was being calculated based on internal temperature and a given rate of conduction through the crust. It was more a musing of my own rather than a full "this is the way it is" statement, and upon reflection probably wasn't very obvious to others.
We are talking about deviation from a baseline. Whatever energy makes it's way from the core to the surface is going to be very constant. Anthropogenic caused change is over and above that constant. The core impact of climate change science is a net zero.
"We are talking about deviation from a baseline. Whatever energy makes it's way from the core to the surface is going to be very constant. Anthropogenic caused change is over and above that constant. The core impact of climate change science is a net zero."
You might want to change that "of" to an "on" I'll avoid playing with that because generally, on the deviation from baseline idea, I think I agree with you. My question was more relating to just what the baseline really is, which is an important issue as well.
Consider that along with a mistake in the core temperature, they also almost certainly made a mistake on the thermal conductivity of the crust. It's likely that the impact on energy flux making it to the surface of the Earth is zero.
Possibly so, but at this point it is just speculation either way. For all we know, your initial thought that it was totally disregarded in calculations is also possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll avoid playing with that because generally, on the deviation from baseline idea, I think I agree with you. My question was more relating to just what the baseline really is, which is an important issue as well.
