Influence of Geothermal Heat on past and present climate
Ben Wouters
Zuid Scharwoude, februari 2014, V 1.4
Introduction.
Current climate science asserts that the sun does not provide enough energy to explain our current pleasant surface temperatures. The Effective temperature for a planet at our distance from the sun without atmosphere is calculated as ~255K, and the atmosphere is supposedly adding ~33K to arrive at the average surface temperature of ~288K for planet Earth. (1)
Interestingly our Moon is such a planet. It reflects less solar radiation than Earth, but its average surface temperature is a mere 197K, as measured by the Diviner Project. (2)
So the assertion that solar energy is not able to explain our surface temperatures is correct, but the temperature difference to explain is at least ~90K. (3)
Some observations:
- Earth is basically a planet consisting of molten stone, with a core of molten metal,
covered with a very thin crust barely able to contain all that heat - Our atmosphere has a heat storage capacity equal to that of ~3 meter of water
- The oceans have a heat storage capacity well over 1000 times that of the atmosphere
- Oceans cover over 70% of Earth’s surface
Considering the above, the atmosphere is not the most obvious place to look for an explanation why Earth’s surface is more than 90K warmer than the Moon’s.
In this text I’ll demonstrate how a combination of the geothermal heat flux trough the oceans crust and small and large magma eruptions combined with the properties of the oceans can explain our current surface temperatures.
With the surface temperatures set by the temperature of the deep oceans plus solar heating of the surface layer, the atmosphere only has to reduce the heat loss from the surface to space to arrive at a balanced energy budget for planet Earth.
Geothermal Heat and the Oceans.
Following list shows known large magmatic events, mainly taken from this list (4), using the ones marked (O) (oceanic flood basalt).
| Event | Volume (km3 ) | Million years Before Present (mya) |
| Shatsky Rise | 4 x 106 ?? | 160-145 (160-145) |
| Hess Rise | 9.1 x 106 | 100 |
| Wallaby Plateau | 1.5 x 106 | 96 |
| CCCIP | 4.5 x 106 | 90-87 |
| Madagascar Event | 4.4 x 106 | 90-84 |
| Ontong Java event | 100 x 106 | 125-119 & 94-86 |
| Kerguelen events | 15.1 x 106 | 110 & 86 |
| Naturaliste Plateau | 1.2 x 106 | 100 |
| Sierra Leone Rise | 2.5 x 106 | 70 |
| Maud Rise | 1.2 x 106 | 70 |
(Ontong Java event includes the Manihiki and Hikurangi plateaus, see this study (5))
This image shows how Earth’s climate (temperature) evolved during the last ~500 million years.
The superimposed coloured bands refer to events in the list above.
Note also the rapid and large warming starting around 300 mya.
The events marked in red total around 136 million km3. The total volume of the oceans is ~1.400 million km3. Assuming magma being 1000K warmer than deep ocean water, and the specific heat capacity of water being 4 times that of magma, these events have the potential to warm all ocean water ~ 24K. At the time of the peak temperature around 85 mya the deep ocean temperatures were ~18K above present temperatures.
Warming and Cooling rates due to Geothermal Heat.
The following graph is from this study (6), and it shows a reconstruction of deep (below 1000m) ocean temperatures over the last 108 million years. The coloured rectangles refer to the events marked in the same colour on page 3.
Since the peak temperature around 84 mya the deep oceans have cooled ~18K.
To get a feel for the cooling rate some examples:
- 84 mya to present 1K/ ~5 million years
- 50 mya to present 1K/ ~4 million years
- Between 50 mA and 35 mA the rate is 1K/ ~2 million years.
In contrast the warming between 125 mya and 84 mya is roughly 1K/ 3 million years
When the last of the red marked events finished (84 mya) we find very high deep ocean temperatures, ~ 18K warmer then today. In that period hardly any ice existed near the geographic poles. Evidence exists (7) for forests growing up to 85 degrees latitude. Since that time the deep oceans have been cooling down, with some minor warming periods temporarily interrupting the cooling.
Mechanism for the very slow ocean warming / cooling.
We have basically 3 different kinds of geothermal heat that escapes through Earth’s crust.
- heat flux through the crust, presently ~100 mW/m2 for oceanic crust.
(capable of warming the average ocean water column 1K every ~5000 year) - magma erupting continuously at plate boundaries, a small but reasonably steady flux
- magma erupting due to magma plumes, creating large oceanic plateaus or other large eruptions.
I consider the first two kinds the “base” warming of the deep oceans.
This is a cross section of the Pacific Ocean. (source) Obvious is that the surface layer is considerably warmer than the deep oceans, since it is warmed by the sun. This means that water heated at the bottom only can rise to a depth where its density is equal to the water it rises into. So the warm surface layer effectively shields the deep oceans thermally from the atmosphere. A surface ice layer does the same.
Cooling can only happen at places where no warm surface layer or ice layer is present. This is a small portion of the total oceanic surface. If the cooling area is 10% of the ocean’s surface, already 1 W/m2 has to be lost there to the atmosphere to offset the 100 mW/m2 flux. With 1% cooling area this number becomes 10 W/m2.
Furthermore the ocean floor area is (much) larger than the surface area giving more heat flux from the ocean floor.
The net result of all the “base” warming minus cooling at high latitudes is apparently slightly negative. As long as no large magmatic events are in progress the deep oceans cool down.
Conclusion.
Assuming all the periods of warming as shown in the image on page 3 are caused by now mostly elusive magmatic events, we have a mechanism that explains the warm and cold periods in earth’s history, and also explains the incredible temperature stability of earth’s climate.
Since their creation the temperature of the deep oceans has been set by the balance between geothermal heat on one side and cooling at high latitudes on the other.
The sun only warms a shallow surface layer to create the observed surface temperatures.
The role of the atmosphere now simply is the slowing of the heat loss to space. No warming of the surface required by backradiation or other constructs.
With the inclusion of geothermal heat as climate parameter plus the characteristics of the oceans we have a simple explanation for the much higher average surface temperature of the earth compared to that of our moon. (~290K vs ~197K)
With this setup we have also a solution for the Faint Young Sun paradox (8):
a younger, more active earth with many large(r) magma eruptions offsetting less output of the young sun.
With the surface temperature of earth explained by a combination of geothermal heat and solar warming, the atmosphere only needs to reduce heat loss to space, no additional warming required.
The Greenhouse effect is ~0K, climate sensitivity for CO2 also ~0K, probably even slightly negative.
Appendix A.
The oldest oceanic crust is ~180 million years old. Older magmatic events in the oceans will probably emain elusive. Also younger events may already have been subducted under a continent, making it near impossible to get a complete picture of all relevant magmatic events.
Implications are that the events that probably caused warming before ~180 mya can no longer be found and used to correlate early climate with large magma eruptions.
Following image shows the age distribution for oceanic crust.
(see here for details)
References
(1) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal_1.pdf
(2) http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
(3) http://www.principia-scientific.org/moons-hidden-message.html
(4) http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/0events
(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X06002251
(6) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007255/abstract
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Images.
page 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
page 4: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/
page 5: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/woce/
page 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_crust
Document as PDF here (744kB)
[PDF translated for WordPress blog by Tim]
[please notify of any mistakes]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“The Effective temperature for a planet at our distance from the sun without atmosphere is calculated as ~255K, and the atmosphere is supposedly adding ~33K to arrive at the average surface temperature of ~288K for planet Earth. (1)”
These numbers are meaningless. The Earth is not flat. There is a day/night cycle where the Earth gets about 1370 W/m2 during the day. The Sun does in fact supply enough energy for the temperature of the planet that we actually experience.
Having said that, there is a real energy source under our feet. Working out how much it contributes to the total picture is a challenge given that most of the activity occurs in places we cannot observe easily.
@Tim: terrific piece of work, both structure and presentation.
@Ben Wouters: thank you for this conclusive climatology benchmark 😎
Ben,
I am guessing you were the “BenW” who left a comment on Willis Eschenbach’s attack thread on the Usoskin paper at WUWT. I did respond to that comment, although you may have missed it. –
The conclusion of my comment –
“If the high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology do not understand even the basic physics of how the sun heats our oceans, how reliable is their gospel that solar variation has little influence on climate?”
– got Willis hot enough under the collar that he decided to step up to the plate and respond in your stead. Bad move. He lost, and badly. It turns out just like climate pseudo scientists, “lukewarmer” Willis did not understand that it was not just emissivity that needed to be known to calculate equilibrium temperature of a material, but surface translucency/transparency as well.
The high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology do indeed claim that “the sun does not provide enough energy to explain our current pleasant surface temperatures”, but they are completely and utterly wrong. Therefore your claim “So the assertion that solar energy is not able to explain our surface temperatures is correct” is also in error.
It is important not to get sucked into the foaming insanity of the Church or Radiative Climatology. They are attempting to apply instantaneous radiative flux equations to moving fluids in which accurately modelling non-radiative energy transports is critical. The “basic physics” of the “settled science” is essentially a two shell radiative model with non-radiative transports parametrised as constants. Given that tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells would not exist without radiative cooling and subsidence of air masses from altitude, the complete inanity of the Church of Radiative Climatology’s gospel should be evident.
Ben, Sadly you seem to have fallen for some of their crazed gospel. Just as they got the “basic physics” of the atmosphere wrong, so to the priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology stuffed up the calculations on how the ocean heats. The sun truly does have the power to heat our oceans, and if our oceans could be retained in the absence of an atmosphere the sun would heat them to 80C and possibly beyond. (In empirical experiment I have achieved temperatures higher than 115C in solar heating of transparent materials restricted from conductive and evaporative cooling).
On Willis’ Usoskin bashing thread I provide build instructions for a simple empirical experiment I call “Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmannic Vinegar”. This experiment clearly demonstrates the stupidity of the pseudo scientists who ignored the transparency of the oceans when miscalculating the effect of SW radiation. SW heating at depth of a transparent substance with intermittent SW peaking at over 1000 w/m2 results in very different equilibrium temperatures than heating the same material at the surface with a constant 250 w/m2.
The important points –
The oceans cover 71% of the earth’s surface.
The sun primarily heats our oceans.
The net effect of the atmosphere over our oceans is ocean cooling.
The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is atmospheric cooling.
Adding radiative gases to our atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
97% of climate “scientists” are snivelling idiots.
I have read this post 3 times to get an idea of the concept. I have lived in an area where geothermal activity underground and in the waters definitely has a hand in the local climate. Although at present magma activities have been quite low the facts on the ground indicate this is not always so. The author only examines a few of the larger events.
Another effect no one examines is atmospheric density. Volcanic activity could release additional gasses. Build up the atmosphere to 14.8psia from 14.7psia and surface climate conditions change dramatically. pg
Konrad, I went back to the thread that you linked to and re-read the exchange between Willis and Tom and it is unbelievable. Willis actually thinks that the law of the conservation of energy means the conservation of energy flux! His inability to grasp the difference between a rotating sphere, half of which is receiving energy and all of which is losing energy, to an average which equates to a flat disc is amazing. It did not matter how Tom tried to explain this simple concept, it was completely beyond Willis. The steel sphere thought bubble that Wiliis came up with some posts earlier was a clear indication that Willis may have some talents, but physics is not one of them!
Cooling can only happen at places where no warm surface layer or ice layer is present.
No. All objects cool, unless they have an energy source. Water on the surface cools no matter where it is.
A lot of undersea eruptions in 1997 could possibly explain the 1997 step change seen here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2014-0-29-deg-c/
I don’t know of any way to test this hypothesis, though.
Come to think of it, the undersea geothermal activity to cause a 1997 global tropospheric temperature step change would probably have to happen before 1997. Maybe in 1995…?
New climastrology model (02 March 2014): cold fresh water at the surface inhibits release of heat from the deep sea level [paywalled at Nature Climate Change dot com].
Apparently their fig. 2 models “excluding years with observations in fewer than 20 half-degree grid squares …” [sentence truncated by paywall].
I agree with your assertion that the Diviner measurements show that “Global Warming” is at least three times greater than the 33 Kelvin claimed by supporters of the Arrhenius theory (1896) such as Scott Denning. Denning is a “good sport”, a very rare bird in the CAGW camp given that he is prepared to debate with people like us:
Much more typical of the CAGW camp is the irrational David Appell who has already commented on this thread. David has published physics papers yet he can’t grasp simple concepts such as the adiabatic lapse rate that most of us learned in high school. Here is one of his papers that was published in a magazine edited by Bernt Mueller who was head of the physics department when I was working at the Duke University Free Electron Laser Laboratory in 2002.
“Jets as a Probe of Quark-Gluon Plasmas,” with George Sterman, Physical Review, D33, 717 (1986). Reprinted in Quark-Gluon Plasma – Theoretical Foundations, Joseph Kapusta, Johann Rafelski, and Berndt, Mueller, editors, Elsevier Science.”
David Appell has already commented here but be warned that he will try to muddy the waters and deny empirical evidence. Take a look at his comments on this post:
Truthseeker says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:25 am
——————————–
Truthseeker, Willis’ performance was truly atrocious. You will note from that thread that Willis chooses to respond to Tom rather than committing to an answer on the the very simple physics question –
“Willis, do you feel that if our oceans could be retained without an atmosphere they would freeze?”
This means he has not only lost, but he knows he lost. In previous years he was happy to claim they would freeze without DWLWIR. This would no longer appear to be the case.
Willis and the lukewarmers now find themselves in the same sorry position as the AGW propagandists, desperately searching for a “sciencey” sounding exit strategy. But nothing they are trying will work. The net effect of radiative gases is cooling not warming. Every attempt to claim less warming rather than cooling just digs the hole deeper and deeper.
gallopingcamel says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:02 am
——————————-
David Appell is noted a a shameless propagandist that refers to CO2, a radiative gas that both absorbs and emits IR, as a “heat trapping gas”. His tireless work on American political blogs has achieved a truly spectacular result. Future history has been re-written. The Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation are no longer first in line 😉
@David Appell says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:47 am
“Cooling can only happen at places where no warm surface layer or ice layer is present.
No. All objects cool, unless they have an energy source. Water on the surface cools no matter where it is.”
I think you will find that Ben Wouters is saying: deep ocean will only cool if the surface water above it is cooler.
See his word here: “Cooling can only happen at places where no warm surface layer or ice layer is present.”
Which complies with your belief.
Now that so many experts of the climate debate are here, can I ask a simple question: where is the work going? Look at this picture (an engineer’s model),
There is 1:heat input, 2:internal work, 3:cooled down output, and of course the output of 4:functional work (and yes, the whole system may starve or may be overloaded beyond capacity).
At any rate the hot atmosphere (‘air’ and water) is transformed into (whatever amount of) work, and thereafter the cooler atmosphere (‘air’ and water) is released.
Question: where is the kind and amount of work in climate models? what are the perceptible objects and pattern? what are the equations?
Konrad said:
” Given that tropospheric convective circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells would not exist without radiative cooling and subsidence of air masses from altitude”
I have a problem with that since the necessary decline in temperature with height would still be present without radiative loss from higher up due to the conversion of kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy as one goes higher.
As regards Ben’s idea that energy from the core adds to the surface temperature so as to raise it up to 90K above that predicted by the S-B equation then I have a problem with that too.
If there were no atmosphere there might be a fractional increase above S-B as the outgoing geothermal energy were added to the outgoing reradiated solar energy (both being emitted from the surface) but how much would it be ?
33K of any thermal enhancement is due to the mass of the atmosphere is it not ?
The remaining difference between Earth and Moon (beyond that anticipated from the albedo differences) would be due to Earth’s oceans acting as an absorber of both solar radiation AND geothermal energy but what portion of that would be attributable to geothermal ?
The oceans should be regarded as part of Earth’s atmosphere.
Isn’t the S-B prediction for Moon and Earth different due to their different surface albedos ?
S-B doesn’t produce the same figure for bodies at the same distance from the sun if the albedos are different.
As far as I can see the amount of energy from the geothermal source would only affect the height of the thermocline and not the temperature at the top of the oceans. The latter would continue to be controlled by the weight of the atmosphere above and the level of insolation.
Changes in the height of the thermocline from changes in the rate of geothermal energy flow would then be negated by changes in the rate of evaporation at the ocean surface.
The thing is that if surface temperature beneath an atmosphere is set by mass, gravity and insolation then circulation changes in the atmosphere deal with everything else including geothermal energy and CO2.
So there would be a climate effect from geothermal changes but, just as for CO2, it would be represented by latitudinal climate zone shifting rather than a change in surface temperature.
In both cases the effect would be miniscule compared to natural solar and ocean induced variations.
You can see one the interactions which led to Willis getting booted from this blog here:
He’ll be able to return when the oceans freeze over. 🙂
“where is the work going?”
In maintaining atmospheric height by way of equal amounts of adiabatic uplift and descent.
That is how the mass of an atmosphere makes the surface warmer than the S-B expectation.
Energy is diverted from radiation to conduction and convection where it is permanently locked into the adiabatic cycle in the form of gravitational potential energy.
That locked in energy is no longer available for radiation to space which leaves a higher surface temperature at the same time as a balanced top of atmosphere radiation budget.
If any aspect of the system (geothermal or CO2) then tries to upset top of atmosphere radiative balance then there is an instant equal and opposite negative system response available via a change in the global air circulation so as to restore top of atmosphere radiative balance.
Truthseeker says: March 4, 2014 at 12:54 am
The sun is just able to increase the temperature of the oceans SURFACE LAYER from ~275K to (on average) 290K. To see what the sun is capable of, just look at the moon: daytime high ~390K.
Average surface temp a measly 197K. The reason for our pleasant temperatures are the pre-heated deep oceans.
Konrad says: March 4, 2014 at 3:58 am
I don’t think I have fallen for any gospel. Using radiative balance temperatures implicitly assumes the zero radiation temperature of the body to be 0K. I propose the base temperature of earths oceans to be ~275K, The sun adds its energy during daytime, but only to the surface layer( and the thermocline).
The atmosphere reduces the cooling rate of the oceans to space. Without atmosphere the oceans would radiate on average ~400 w/m^2. and the sun would have to supply that to maintain the surface temperature. Actually we lose only ~240 W/m^2 (average) to space, and the sun can supply that just barely.
Reality is that it takes energy to keep the atmosphere up against gravity. If you reduce the surface temperature, the atmosphere sinks back to the surface. See eg tropopause height in the tropics vs near the poles.
David Appell says: March 4, 2014 at 4:47 am
The DEEP oceans can only cool at places where no warm surface layer is present or no surface ice.
Water heated at the oceans floor rises until it hits the thermocline. It can not heat the warmer water above, unless you believe that back conduction is possible, where cold water can heat warmer water.
Gerry says: March 4, 2014 at 6:34 am
The processes I’m talking about are very slow. Warming 1k/ 3 million years or so. I just provide an alternative explanation for the high temperatures on earth. I think my explanation is better than the GHE.
steverichards1984 says: March 4, 2014 at 11:43 am
Thanks 😉
Stephen Wilde says: March 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm
“As regards Ben’s idea that energy from the core adds to the surface temperature so as to raise it up to 90K above that predicted by the S-B equation then I have a problem with that too”
The energy flux from earths interior is negligible compared to the suns energy. Trick is that the oceans have been pre-heated in the distant past, and the sun only has to warm the surface layer ~15K (average) The temperature of the deep oceans is already 275K, way above the 197K real live average surface temperature of the moon.
Ben,
Do you see that the oceans can only hold on to that geothermal energy because of the weight of the atmosphere’s mass pressing onto the ocean surface ?
So in the end it all comes back, full circle, to atmospheric mass.
Stephen Wilde says: March 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Sorry. I have no clue what you’re talking about.
Simple explanation of the atmospheres lapse rate and thermal resistance:
consider a planet in outer space, same gravity as earth, no internal heat, covered with a floor heating system (FHS), replacing the sun to warm the surface.
Í don’t worry where the energy comes from and use the same W/m^2 as for solar radiation.
FHS off, no atmosphere, surface temperature (ST) 2,77K due background radiation.
FHS 100 mW/m^2 => ST ~35K
FHS 240 W/m^2 => ST 255K
FHS 400 W/m^2 => ST 290K
With the surface temp at 290K we cover our planet with an isolation blanket with the same thermal resistance as our atmosphere: 290K on the inside results in an energy loss of 240 W/m^2 at the outside. We can now turn the FHS back to 240 W/m^2 to maintain the 290K ST forever.
FHS off again, ST 0K, but now we place the atmosphere on the surface as a solid layer.
Weight of the full atmosphere is pressing on the surface, but the temperature will be 0K.
We start heating the surface again. As soon as the oxygen and nitrogen are gaseous we have an atmosphere.
If we increase the ST slowly, no convection can start because no temperature differences across the surface exist, and the heat can move up by conduction and radiation.
The higher the ST, the higher the atmosphere will reach above the surface, because the vibrating molecules collide harder against each other.
Temperature will decrease with altitude, because sum of kinetic plus potential energy at every altitude will be the same.
Increasing or decreasing the ST will result in a rising or sinking atmosphere.
Ben.
The pressure at the ocean surface from the weight of air above the ocean surface sets the value of the latent heat of vaporisation.
No atmosphere and the water would all boil off into space.
A heavier atmosphere and the oceans would need to reach a higher temperature than the present for thermal equilibrium with incoming energy from any source to be reached.
So it is the weight of the atmosphere that determines how much energy from any source will be retained by the oceans (and the air).
And you can’t have even surface heating for a rough surfaced rotating sphere illuminated by a point source of energy so you can’t prevent convection, Hadley cells et al.
Once you have convection then climate zones develop and you then have the mechanism whereby additional energy from any source other than more mass, more gravity or more energy input can be dealt with by a change in the convective circulation instead of a change in average overall surface temperature.
So, what proportion of total energy input to the system does geothermal provide at a given moment ?
That determines how much effect geothermal energy can have on the surface temperature.
Even if it were all geothermal and zero solar or zero geothermal and all solar the system would reach the same temperature because the weight of the atmosphere (which includes the oceans) determines how much energy is retained (and for how long) from the energy which flows through.
Stephen Wilde says:
March 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm
“The pressure at the ocean surface from the weight of air above the ocean surface sets the value of the latent heat of vaporisation.”
The pressure at the water surface from the weight of air above the surface sets the Temperature value of the heat of vaporization at the surface. “Gas pressure on the surface sets the temperature of evaporation of the liquid below it”. You must grasp this to understand how everything works!
In refrigeration it is a bit more complex as each gas in the mix sets the value of it’s effect on on the each of the constituents of the liquid below it. In the case of dry air over water, the evaporation temperature will be lower as the pressure of H2O gas will be lower on the water surface then it would be with a saturated, higher vapor pressure, condition. H2 gas, O2 gas, H2O gas pressures all have an effect on water vapor pressure. N2 and Ar2 gases in the atmosphere do not.
Not all molecules are heated at the same rate. The temperature of a volume of heated water is the average temperature of all the molecules in the sample. A 140F sample of heated water can have molecules at 32F as well as those at 212F. If these are held in a tall volume they will stratify due to density, cold at the bottom and hot to the top. Hot molecules take up more space then cold ones, they are less dense for their volume and rise above the colder, more dense ones.
Heating of water by the sun takes place, from the surface to the depths, infrared to ultraviolet and other radiations all effect water molecules to some degree, but most of that effect is near the surface and heated molecules rise among the colder, unheated, ones. The warmest, most energetic jump off of the surface tension into the gas stage to increase the local gas pressure.
The thermocline exists do to it’s energized molecule depletion caused by stratification movement of the energized molecules to the surface. pg
Stephen Wilde says: March 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Stephen
At the moment I’m not interested in the myriad of processes that together form our weather and climate.
I propose an imo simple mechanism explaining how the (avg) temperature on earth can be so much higher than the sun is capable of achieving.
GHE claims that the atmosphere can warm the surface (and the oceans) some 33K and with an avg surface temperature of 290K let on average 240 W/m^2 escape to space.
With the avg surface temperature of 290K explained by pre-heated oceans plus the sun adding ~15K all the atmosphere has to do is reduce the heat loss to space to an avg 240 W/m^2.
Just like a simple isolation blanket.
How the atmosphere achieves this is for later discussion.
But all this means NO GHE, and no significant role for CO2, other than plant food.
I really like to hear any shortcomings in my thinking.
pgs.
I think you may have missed the point since simple pressure is enough to set the energy cost of vaporisation. It is a matter of the weight of mass and not the composition of that mass.
At 1 bar pressure the latent heat of evaporation (the energy taken up by the phase change) is 5 times more than the energy required to induce the phase change.
At lower pressure such as at the top of Everest it is more than 5 times and at higher pressure it is less than 5 times.
For example, if there were no atmosphere at all, then the phase change would occur instantaneously with no extra energy input at all.
If the atmosphere were a solid then no phase change to vapour would occur however much energy were added.
So, the amount of energy taken up in the phase change relative to the amount of energy required to induce the phase change is what determines the temperature that the water can reach at a given level of energy input.
Back to atmospheric mass again.
Ben.
Agreed that there is no GHG induced greenhouse effect but there is a mass induced greenhouse effect.
Agreed that either way CO2 has no significant role.
The mechanism that you propose is ultimately limited by atmospheric mass above the ocean surface. No atmosphere and there would be no oceans at any temperature at all however strong the flow of geothermal heat. Provide a heavier gaseous atmosphere than we currently have and the ocean below the thermocline would be warmer because that atmosphere is what ultimately slows the rate of loss of both geothermal energy and solar energy from the oceans
Back to atmospheric mass again.
The system energy content can only be set by mass, gravity and the energy supply. I can accept geothermal energy as a supplement to solar energy to raise the system energy content but I think you have overstated the effect of the geothermal contribution.
You should express the geothermal contribution as a proportion of the total energy input including solar and compare that proportion to the total of the so called atmospheric thermal enhancement. The rest of the atmospheric thermal enhancement is caused by the mass of the atmosphere (including the oceans) interacting with solar input.
Instead, you have considered the temperature below the thermocline as though it is all induced by the geothermal energy supply when in fact it is primarily determined by the mass of the atmosphere slowing down the rate of flow of solar and geothermal energy through the system.
If there were no geothermal at all, the ocean depths would remain above freezing because in the absence of any geothermal flow there would be no thermocline and the solar energy could more easily circulate around the entire ocean bulk.
You said yourself that the thermocline is the point where geothermal from below meets solar from above so it must follow that if there is no geothermal the thermocline drops to the ocean floor and disappears or if there is no solar then the thermocline rises to the top of the ocean and disappears.
“Temperature will decrease with altitude, because sum of kinetic plus potential energy at every altitude will be the same.”
Interesting concept, I hadn’t really taken that in before, but it seems obvious now you’ve said it.
But of course there are complications, temperatures go down as height increases up to a certain height and then temperatures increase with height.
I’m beginning to think I have to go re-read some of those Niklov and Zeller type posts.
Ben Wouters,
Nobody likes a simple explanation, do they?
For myself, if the Earth’s core is say, 6000 deg K, and the outer limits of the atmosphere say 4 deg K, it seems obvious there will be a temperature gradient from hot to cold (or vice versa).
Throw in an irregularly rotating and wobbling Earth, proceeding in an irregular orbit around a Sun of variable output, and the surface temperature, whether lithospheric or aquaspheric, will vary from femtosecond to femtosecond.
Gravity induced lapse rates are both non essential and silly. It is easily seen that gravity appears to warm the base of the atmosphere, and cool the base of the aquasphere. Most unnerving! And nonsensical. Remove the heat, the temperature drops to zero, and it becomes apparent that gravity only heats things that are already hot. How bizarre.
The globe is cooling, as any hot thing does, if its internal and external heat sources are insufficient to maintain the heat loss due to radiation. It is easily noted that the Earths surface is no longer molten, the seas are not boiling, the atmosphere is no longer 90% CO2 at 100 bar, and so on.
No need to panic. Climate is merely the average of weather. Weather appears to have always changed, and I assume will continue to do so in the future. Climate can therefore be expected to change, being dependent on weather.
Much ado about nothing. Floods, droughts, low temperatures, high winds can kill. Good luck with trying to stop Nature from doing what Nature is won’t to do.
Might as well try and stop death. Good luck with that.
Ben, sorry about the rambling. You are right, but few will acknowledge it, as you have no doubt noticed.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Chaeremon says:
March 4, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“…can I ask a simple question: where is the work going?”
———————————————————————–
This is a good question. In terms of “work” in fluid circulation in climate systems it is important to see that there are two basic systems in play. First is a vapour/condensate heat pump moving energy from the surface to space (tropospheric convective circulation) and the second is a heat engine moving fluid from the equator to the poles and back (pole-wise energy flow).
In the case of the first, tropospheric convective circulation, only a small amount of work is occurring on a diurnal basis as air masses must overcome inertia and fluid resistance to break away from the surface boundary layer. (Rayleigh number exceeded). However vertical circulation in the rest of a tropospheric circulation cell requires little work with near surface heating and increased buoyancy on accent being balanced by radiative cooling, and reduced buoyancy on decent.
In the case of the second, pole-wise energy flow, where the work is going in constantly overcoming friction and flow resistance can be demonstrated by a very simple empirical experiment –
Take two small clear plastic tubs of approximately equal size, one square, one round.
Fill each with water and mix in a small pinch of fine ground cinnamon (for flow visualisation).
Take two teaspoons and stir each tub equally to generate rotating circulation in the water.
Stop stirring and observe which in which tub the circulation slows fastest.
The flow in the square tub slows fastest because of the turbulence and fluid resistance caused at the corners. More work would therefore need to be done to maintain the same speed of circulation in the square tub than the round tub. In the heat engine resulting from equator to pole energy imbalance, work is being done in overcoming friction and turbulent flow in the circulation of air and water between the equator and poles.
@Stephen; I guess I included too much information in the above, Sorry. Gas pressure laws are important in refrigeration systems, absorption systems such as the Servel patent use various gases, water, gravity and heat to create continuous refrigeration. Understanding the interface of water,energy and atmospheric gases is the key to this weather/climate science. Before other modifiers can be considered this must be understood. We waste a lot of effort in these discussions because people don’t realize that their pet hobby horse is too small to be a real driver, just a small contributor to modify the overall effects. pg
Ben Wouters says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:49 pm
“I really like to hear any shortcomings in my thinking.”
——————————————————————–
Ben,
I am not in opposition to the importance of geothermal heating, but I feel you have given it too much weight and that it is not necessary to keep the oceans from freezing. I do agree that due to the slow speed of non-radiative energy transport within the oceans, the geothermal heating effect will be cumulative. What I am pointing out is that so too is the effect of SW heating below the surface. Our oceans are not being heated with a constant 240 w/m2 at the surface but rather intermittent diurnal pulses of SW at depth peaking at over 1000 w/m2.
I urge you to try the empirical experiment described here –
This can be further developed using halogen lights switched in a 25% on, 75% off duty cycle as shown here –
Results of the first variant are dramatic, with a temperature differential between samples as great as 17C within 3 hours. This is not a small error in climate “science”, it is a hole so big you could drive a B-double full of polar bears through it.
You have repeatedly claimed that our atmosphere slows the cooling of the oceans. In 2011 I showed via empirical experiment that Willis was dead wrong and that downwelling LWIR could neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool –
What happens to water when atmospheric cooling is removed? –
If you have a lot of “big oil dollars” you could build the following experiment I have not yet run –
This set-up simple removes all atmospheric effects except pressure from a water sample heated at depth by SW and free to radiatively cool. No conductive or evaporative cooling, and no downwelling LWIR. The gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology says the water will freeze.
Ben, do you believe the water sample would freeze?
Ben Wouters:
Thank you for an interesting post. However, I would be interested to learn where the estimate of 100 million cu km of magma extruded during the Ontong Java event came from. I’ve not been able to find any information on this. Do you have any?
Stephen Wilde says: March 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm
Stephen
I’ve shown that between 125 and 84 mya at least 136.000.000 km^3 magma erupted into the deep oceans. That is enough magma to cover the USA plus Canada under a layer over 6000 meters thick.
It is also roughly 10% of the volume of all the ocean water on earth.
Are you saying that the deep ocean temperature at that time (~18K higher than today) is not caused by this amount of magma, but by an increase in atmospheric mass in that period?
Than pse supply a paleo reconstruction of the atmospheric mass (surface pressure) over the last 125 my, the mechanism that caused that mass to increase in that period, and the mechanism that caused the mass to decrease the last 84 my when the deep oceans cooled.
I would also like to see how surface pressure can warm to deep oceans down to 4000 m deep.
J Martin says: March 4, 2014 at 11:44 pm
“But of course there are complications, temperatures go down as height increases up to a certain height and then temperatures increase with height.”
That’s why I use a floor heating system for my thought experiment.
In reality not all solar will reach the surface to warm it. At high altitudes the few molecules there will be heated to very high temperatures sometimes. The heated mass however is very low so it doesn’t mean much in the great scheme of things.
Mike Flynn says: March 5, 2014 at 12:21 am
I do have hope that of the 97% of climate “scientists” that believe in the GHE a few will be able to think straight and that we can rebuild climate science from the ground up (perhaps from the ocean surface is better?)
And of course the remaining 3% that don’t believe a GHE effect exists 😉
Konrad says: March 5, 2014 at 2:47 am
I know the sun at noon on the equator can heat the lunar surface to almost 400K.
Problem is that the rest of the surface receives less radiation, and halve a planet receives nothing.
So yes, the sun can heat things locally to very high temps, but on average is incapable of preventing the deep oceans from freezing without the help of geothermal.
Have a look at this page: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm
Station is at 31N, and in summer has the sun almost directly above.
Figure 6.7 shows the upper 200m warming in summer, but as soon as the sun goes south the temperatures drop again. No warming at all below 200m.
Same for daily variation: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/…/63050721.pdf
See page 725.
Daily influence of the sun not noticeable below 5-10 meter.
Roger Andrews says: March 5, 2014 at 3:22 am
I believe reference 5 in my text is what you’re looking for.
Ben.
I’ve no doubt that geothermal energy has an effect.
That is why there is a thermocline by your own account.
Nor do I deny that vast magma extrusions will have effects often lasting for a long time due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
All I am pointing out is that the negative system responses involving ocean circulations and the depth of the thermocline will always bring system energy content back to that determined by the weight of the atmosphere on the ocean surface because that is what determines the energy cost and rate of evaporation from the surface.
That applies whether the energy source is solar, geothermal or a mix of the two.
If there were no geothermal then the thermocline would sink to the bottom and dissipate which would then allow surface pressure to affect water temperatures right down to the bottom due to the enhanced circulation that would result.
Stephen Wilde says: March 5, 2014 at 9:27 am
“I’ve no doubt that geothermal energy has an effect.
That is why there is a thermocline by your own account.”
Geothermal has nothing to do with the thermocline.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline
Another thought experiment. We put an isolation blanket in an ocean that has the same temperature at all depths. Blanket at eg 100m.
Switch on the sun, and this upper 100m will warm until the incoming solar is equal to the energy loss to the atmosphere and space. Temperature below the blanket is unaffected sofar.
Remove the blanket, and due to conduction the layer below 100 m will be warmed (and the upper 100m must cool), BUT this warmer water will try to rise. This fight between downward conduction and upward convection creates the thermocline.
Remember that the heat loss to space was equal to incoming solar, so we have NO additional energy left to keep warming the deep ocean.
The “range” of the thermocline is decided by the temperature difference between surface layer and deep ocean. No energy left to warm the ocean below the thermocline.
Ben said:
“Geothermal has nothing to do with the thermocline.”
but previously said:
“water heated at the bottom only can rise to a depth where its density is equal to the water it rises into”
Isn’t that a contradiction since it is the amount of geothermal energy at the bottom relative to the amount of solar input from the top which will determine the depth of the thermocline .
Ben Wouters says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:40 am
“Daily influence of the sun not noticeable below 5-10 meter”
————————————————————————–
Daily influence is not the issue. Cumulative effects are. You are talking of the cumulative effects of geothermal, whereas I am talking of the cumulative solar effects down to 200m, the limit of SW solar radiation. Any solar effects below this would be due to non-radiative transport, which is very slow.
I have no personal experience at 200m. The deepest I have dived is 50m. Pass through the thermocline in a 6mm wetsuit that has compressed to half its surface thickness and you will know it 😉
I have no problem with geothermal keeping the deep oceans from freezing. While I have not been below 50m, one of my work mates helped build the composite flotation casing for James Cameron’s stunt. Bottom of the Marianas trench. Deep as you can go. Definitely not frozen.
Why I was raising the issue of how SW heats the upper oceans is I felt you were adopting the gospel of the Church of Radiative Climatology which states the oceans would freeze without downwelling LWIR. Simple empirical experiment proves this gospel incorrect.
As a side note – Putting aside intermittent eruptions, known hydrothermal venting has been estimated to release more than 17,000,000 MW into the oceans each year. This is approximate to the total of human energy consumption. It is not hard to imagine submarine thermal power plants powering surface refineries, converting seawater to hydrogen and combining hydrogen and carbon to produce transportable liquid fuels to power our world.
Konrad says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:46 am
It is not hard to imagine submarine thermal power plants powering surface refineries, converting seawater to hydrogen and combining hydrogen and carbon to produce transportable liquid fuels to power our world.
—
Imagine the coastlines were littered with off-shore wind mills, then experience dictates: at least one of them suffers from severe malfunction per year (just compare to a cargo ship fleet).
Therefore, unless profit is somehow made irrelevant, submarine thermal power plants seem not in sight.
With the help of above answers to my question “where is the work going” I found an example new energy reservoir which was unthinkable but now exists in terms of palpable blueprints and research on material for the first prototype “Infrared: A new renewable energy source?“. The aim is to generate electricity out of the general principle, as was posted in several statements above: the differences in temperature generate work.
Chaeremon says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:18 am
———————————
Wind farms are useless, too little power and too much unreliable technology spread over too great an area with no energy storage.
You should look into the power of some geothermal vents, many the power of multi MW power stations. Constant, reliable and above all, in international waters 😉
Konrad said: Wind farms are useless.
Agree, man invented the steamboat as the wait for the next wind was always extremely tedious.
Konrad said: … geothermal vents … constant, reliable …
Yes, but not our technology which cannot withstand more than 1 storm without severe damage 😦 As already said, it’s more a matter of profit and risk, than of engineering.
Stephen Wilde says: March 5, 2014 at 10:29 am
” since it is the amount of geothermal energy at the bottom relative to the amount of solar input from the top which will determine the depth of the thermocline .”
Thermoclines grow and diminish with the temperature difference between surface layer and deep oceans. At high latitudes we have no thermocline, and there the deep oceans can cool down to space. In the tropics and moderate latitudes the thermocline is permanent.
Geothermal is a very slow process, and on the timescales a thermocline grows and diminishes the deep ocean temperature can be considered constant.
Konrad says: March 5, 2014 at 10:46 am
“As a side note – Putting aside intermittent eruptions, known hydrothermal venting has been estimated to release more than 17,000,000 MW into the oceans each year.”
That should be included in the geothermal that balances against the cooling at high latitudes.
I’m afraid we won’t have any reliable numbers on the amount of geothermal energy entering the deep oceans for a long time.
Only measure is the result: we have been cooling down (very slowly) the last 84 million years.
@ Ben Wouters March 5, 2014 at 8:42 am
Your reference 5 is what prompted me to ask the question. It cites 100 million cu km of magma from the Ontong Java event – enough to cover the entire surface of the Earth to a depth of 200m and also 20-30 times the volume of the extruded magma thought to have caused the Permo-Triassic mass extinction – without specifying how this number was arrived at. I can’t claim that the number is wrong, but since 100/136 = 74% of your warming and cooling calculations depend on it it would be nice to be able to confirm that it’s based on some reasonably hard data.
Roger Andrews says: March 5, 2014 at 5:04 pm
Not being a geologist I can only quote others.
Here’s another reference:
http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/nl/ontong-java-plateau.html
I understand that this event isn’t the largest in earths history by any means.
Just look at the warming that started ~300 mya (first graph)
Larger and faster than the warming that started ~125 mya.
I assume the continents also originated from large magma eruptions.
Those must truly have been gigantic.
During the moon landing were any sub surface temperatures recorded? When I visited Carls Bad Caverns in the 60s I remember being told that the temperature in the cavern was 56f bear around.
From a laymen’s perspective, this would seem to indicate that our core provides some of our heat. For that matter, what is the temperature inside an ice cave? The difference of temperature between Carlsbad and an ice cave might be instructive.
Ben Wouters:
I am a geologist (among other things) and I’ve also worked in geothermal, but my problem here is more volumetric than geologic.
For example, the article you link to states that “the (Ontong Java) eruption produced about 100 million cubic kilometers of basalt …. and covered about 1% of the earth’s surface.” One percent of the earth’s surface is about 5 million sq km, and to accommodate 100 million cu km of basalt within 5 million sq km the basalt has to be 20km thick. Since the thickness of oceanic crust averages about 5km this implies that roughly three-quarters of the basalt never even left the mantle.
And if we assume that there’s something wrong with these numbers and that 100 million cu km of basalt really did get extruded we’re faced with another problem. The Ontong Java Plateau and its outlier remnants, assuming they sit on oceanic crust, contain maybe a million cu km of material, according to my Google Earth estimate. So where did the other 99 million cu km go? So far as I know there’s no sign of it anywhere, so we have to assume that it was all incorporated into oceanic plates and subducted back down into the mantle.
But if this is the case, why is the Ontong Java plateau itself still there?
All very mysterious. Best ask a geologist 🙂
CC Skeptic: Yes, the Apollo teams put sensors in the regolith a couple of feet down and got an average temperature around 230K IIRC. That was at a latitude which was approximately ‘halfway’ in insolation terms between equator and poles (slightly to the warm side). The Moon doesn’t exhibit anything in the way of geothermal activity at the surface however. IIRC it’s thought that if it does have a molten core, it’s compritively small compared with Earth’s and under an extremely thick ‘crust’.
“Down the Lunar-rabbit hole” at NASA’s web site states the following about the moon’s underground temperature:
“The tunnels offer a perfect radiation shield and a very benign thermal environment,” says Robinson. “Once you get down to 2 meters under the surface of the Moon, the temperature remains fairly constant, probably around -30 to -40 degrees C.”
Can the gravity of the earth and our atmosphere account for the difference between +54 f and -30C?
TB, thank you for the reply.. In retirement, I now have time to study things outside of my vocation of computer systems and software.
CC Skeptic: Nasa don’t state in their ‘down the rabbit hole’ article the latitude of the rille where the temperature is -30 – -40C but it will depend on latitude. Heat doesn’t get transferred polewards as it does on Earth by the oceans so there is a stronger gradient.
tallbloke says: March 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
It seems the Diviner webpage is off the air / removed: http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
“The Moon doesn’t exhibit anything in the way of geothermal activity at the surface however. ”
Craters near the poles where the sun never shines still have a temperature of ~25K iso the expected
2,77K. This could be due a geothermal flux of ~50 -100 mW/m^2.
If so, then it seems reasonable to expect the temperature to rise towards moons core
@Ben Wouters: “This is Google’s cache of http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 27 Feb 2014 10:40:56 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9_SNv5mUCQgJ:diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Roger Andrews says: March 5, 2014 at 5:04 pm
“74% of your warming and cooling calculations depend on it it would be nice to be able to confirm that it’s based on some reasonably hard data.”
Roger
to be sure, my warming and cooling calculations don’t depend on the amount of magma that erupted.
Cooling rate is from graph 2: 17K in 85 million years => 1K / 5 million years
Warming is from graph 1: 13K in ~39 million years => 1k / 3 million years.
I used a very crude calculation to show that these amounts of magma have the potential to cause this warming.
Assumptions are ao the temperature of the erupting magma. I use 1000K above deep sea temps.
(~1270K) Since the magma is probably from mantle plumes (convective process) the temperature is probably higher (1600K ?)
Another assumption is the specific heat capacity of magma vs water. I used 1 : 4.
In the period the warming took place (125 – 84 mya) a large number of significant magma eruptions occurred, giving a much more acceptable explanation for the high deep ocean temperatures than a mysteriously increasing CO2 concentration warming the deep oceans.
If my mechanism is confirmed, the older warmings can also be attributed to large magma eruptions.
We even see some periodicity: 450 -300 -150 mya. Perhaps the time for the core to heat up the next batch of mantle plumes? ( like pulsating thermals in the atmosphere )
But extending this mechanism to the young earth, the temperature of the deep oceans can simply be explained by geothermal heat, and a much better explanation for our high temperatures is available than the nonsensical GHE.
Chaeremon says: March 6, 2014 at 10:16 am
Thanks for the pointer.
I’m curious what happened to the site.
The Diviner project gives an accurately measured surface temperature for our moon. (197K)
This is so far from the Effective temperature for the moon (270K) that the only conclusion can be that the 255K for earth is also way too high. Thus the GHE is for earth isn’t 33K but at least 100K.
This alone should be reason enough to abandon this GH nonsense.
Hope it isn’t “disappeared” to hide these inconvenient facts.
(see reference 3 in my text)
@Ben Wouters who said: Hope it isn’t “disappeared” …
Which of the archived versions would you like to access (doesn’t disappear here):
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
But this can be disappeared if the web server wants so, the site (maintainer, owner) always has ultimate control. Have a screen shot for your personal use (just in case)?
I’ve kept out of this discussion because I know there is a conflict with Ben. No problem unless discussion drifts right into conflict which it has.
Longer Talkshop readers will I hope remember I accounted for Lunar temperature via basic computation, there is no mystery other than why mainstream don’t get it.
I did not post on applying the same computation to earth but of course I looked. Reason: I don’t want a re-run of the N&Z lesson that no-matter what you say you cannot keep people off, out of where you tell them not to go. Discussion is not possible.
The earth will be much hotter. Roughly speaking what we see, I am also particularly interested in Willis’ idea of the ~30C maximum.
All I have to do is change two factors. The thermal properties of the surface and how fast it spins.
These are dynamic bodies, not static. Get that into the head of climatic physics.
Now define surface when applied to the earth.
Aside: the same effect is at work with UHI where all you have to do is change the thermal properties to get a rise in temperature and a change of shape.
Probably best leave it at that. I’m very busy on other things.
Chaeremon says: March 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Thanks, I’m familiar with the Wayback Machine.
Was just expressing my curiosity about the disappearance of the site.
tchannon says: March 6, 2014 at 4:47 pm
“I’ve kept out of this discussion because I know there is a conflict with Ben.”
Can hardly imagine we’d have a conflict. Once you’ve got some time we can discuss this.
Only thing I’m absolutely not buying is that the deep oceans (below ~1000m) can be warmed from above.
Ben: I’ll email Ned Nikolov who worked with Dr Vavasada.
@ TC
Small point: the ’30C maximum’ idea doesn’t come from Willis Eschenbach. He says so himself:
‘Let me be clear that I am by no means the originator of the claim that there is a thermostat regulating the maximum ocean temperature.’
Wouters idea that internal heating of the earth is underestimated is convincing. His doubts about CO2 are welcome but his mainstream consensus explanation of the lapse rate is wrong.
Ben Wouters says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:40 pm
Simple explanation of the atmospheres lapse rate and thermal resistance:
and later
Temperature will decrease with altitude, because sum of kinetic plus potential energy at every altitude will be the same.
The potential energy (P.E.) is gravitational energy. Kinetic energy plus P.E. … will be the same, is the law of conservation of energy.
But Wouters doesn’t use these concepts of gravity or conservation of energy in his thermal resistance hypothesis. An observation can’t have to different causes.
Also how does thermal resistance explain why there is a halt in the lapse rate at 200K?
About the 30C maximum.
Seems very plausible that with current deep ocean temperatures the sun is not able to warm tropical surface water much above this 30C value.
During the time of the deep ocean max. temperatures (~18K higher than today) the max surface temperatures were most probably also much higher: 33C – 42C.
See http://phys.org/news10978.html
Imo it’s not a thermostat, just the max. temperature the sun is able to achieve given the present temperature of the deep oceans and the ocean currents, convective cooling etc. etc.
In a shallow lake in the tropics water temperatures should imo be higher than 30C.
Roger Clague says: March 6, 2014 at 8:37 pm
“his mainstream consensus explanation of the lapse rate is wrong.”
Aren’t you confusing the environmental lapse rate with the adiabatic lapse rates?
I should have specified environmental lapse rate specifically.
The way adiabatic lapse rates are used in current climatology is total nonsense imo.
In my thought experiment I use a floor heating system iso of solar to prevent discussions about how much solar is absorbed by the atmosphere and where etc.
With the heat source at the surface the temperature decreases with distance, against gravity in the case of the atmosphere, trying to reach max. entropy.
In real life everything the sun throws at us first reaches the thin upper atmosphere. The temperature there can reach very high values, but not much mass is involved.
The ozone layer intercepts UV and gets warmer in this way.
see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
Ben Wouters says:
March 7, 2014 at 8:01 am
see eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
It say there about the lapse rate
Although variations do occur, the temperature usually declines with increasing altitude in the troposphere because the troposphere is mostly heated through energy transfer from the surface.
That is
The sun heats the surface. The surface `conducts and radiates to cold space.
Gravity plays no part except to determine the size of the lapse rate
I say
Gravity makes the bottom of the troposphere hotter than the top
Radiation plays no part
My criticism of the your Wikipedia (consensus ) hypothesis
The gravity hypothesis has been around a long time and not disputed.
Your theory is new. It is promoted by CO2 causes CAGW alarmists to support radiation only theories about the atmosphere
The troposphere is not mostly heated ( by radiation and conduction ) from the surface.It is also heated directly by the sun and by convection and condensation of H2O, releasing latent heat when clouds form well above the surface
Radiation energy depends on r*3. Lapse rate depends on r.
It cannot calculate the value of the lapse rate. I can
It cannot explain the difference between wet and dry rates. I can
It cannot explain the height and temperature of the tropopause. I can
Ben W,
Would the following be a reasonable summation of your article?
The average ambient temperature 2 meters below the surface of the moon is estimated to be -30c. The average ambient temperature in Carlsbad Caverns is +13c. When I compare these values to the “Mean Surface Temperature” presented on the Artemis Organization’s chart, ca. 2000, I note that they are roughly the same. Therefore the Mean Surface Temperature of Earth is controlled by the its molten core and the components which make up the planetary environment.
The Minimum/Maximum Surface Temperatures, listed below, are therefore determined by Earth’s rotational speed and the Sun’s action on Earth’s components.
Mean Surface Temperature
F R C K
Earth 59 519 15 288
Moon -9 451 -23 250
Mars -76 384 -60 213
Minimum Surface Temperature
F R C K
Earth -128 332 -89 184
Moon -233 227 -147 126
Mars -170 290 -112 161
Maximum Surface Temperature
F R C K
Earth 136 596 58 331
Moon 212 672 100 373
Mars 17 477 -8 265
Roger Clague says: March 7, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Since you seem to agree that the surface temperature of the earth (oceans) can be explained by geothermal heating plus the sun warming the surface layer, we have no need for the cold, thin atmosphere to add anything to the surface temperature => no GHE.
Only some reducing of the heat loss to space. Air is one of the worst conductors so this poses no problem at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity
All I say about the atmosphere is good old meteorology as I studied it ~40 years ago, before radiation madness struck.
The dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates only exist WITHIN rising or descending parcels of air.
Every glider pilot should be able to explain the difference between the two, since they explain how and why thermals rise in the atmosphere.
CC Skeptic says: March 7, 2014 at 6:30 pm
I only compare the moon to the earth because they are at the same distance from the sun.
Your moon temperatures are much too high.
See http://web.archive.org/web/20131030234509/http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
(hope the link works since the original page is of the air)
Average lunar surface temperature is ~197K.
I propose that the high surface temperatures on earth are caused by geothermal heat warming the oceans, the sun only warming the surface layer ~15K or so.
The mechanism is a bit more complicated because the heat flux through the crust is low.
Only with liquid oceans can the low flux explain the very slow cooling rates of the oceans AFTER they have been re-heated by gigantic magma eruptions.
Magma eruptions on a continent (eg Deccan traps, Siberian traps) have no long lasting influence, because their heat is whisked of to space almost instantly.
Ben W: “The dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates only exist WITHIN rising or descending parcels of air.”
Hi Ben, is this correct? Even in completely still air it will be around 9.5C colder at 1000m above sea level. (At the wet lapse rate the air wouldn’t be still because water vapour must be convecting).
tallbloke says: March 8, 2014 at 8:49 am
Ben W: “The dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates only exist WITHIN rising or descending parcels of air.”
Hi Ben, is this correct?
Not a sliver of doubt in my mind. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate .
(forget the part “Thermodynamic SS/Radiative GHG lapse rate” that has been added later by some warmista)
These lapse rates are called adiabatic for a reason. I never understood how our climaclowns can think of the atmosphere as adiabatic with all the energy flowing in, out and trough it.
Hi Ben,
Around 25% of insolation energy is absorbed in the atmosphere. Naturally more is absorbed where the air is denser and there are more molecules of gas per unit volume to interact with the shortwave radiation. The density gradient of the atmosphere is therefore a significant factor in the existence of the lapse rate. Just look at the difference in the vertical thermal profile between day and night and this is obvious.
Absolutely. That’s why you will never see the Standard atmospheric lapse rate show up in reality. . Disturbances abound. But ON AVERAGE the temperature reduces the farther away from the main heat source (surface) you move.
Hi Ben,
The heat source is the Sun. The lapse rate develops early in the morning before the ground has heated up, because the air has a much lower heat capacity than rock or soil or water, and so gets hotter more quickly (even hotter near the surface where air is denser). Convection from the warmed surface soon starts to play a part in reducing the lapse rate as the morning wears on.
tallbloke says: March 8, 2014 at 9:19 am
The lapse rates does not develop, it’s always there, day and night. The (environmental) lapse rate is just a description of how the temperature changes with altitude. Usually measured with weather balloons. Sometimes the temperature rises with altitude (inversion), on average it reduces with altitude ( ~6,5K/1000m)
Ask Tim. He still might have the graphs we discussed connected to the nocturnal jet.
They show perfectly clear how the lapse rate changes from day to night and back.
Convection does not change the lapse rate. The rising parcel of air cools ADIABATICALLY (no interchange with the surrounding air) until it reaches an altitude with the same density (temperature) and it stays there. In the mean time somewhere nearby air is descending to fill the “void”. This air warms adiabatically.
The Hadley cell circualtion is a fine example. It works the similar to the classic Fohn effect.
This is the reason for the hot and dry deserts at ~30N and S.
Hi Ben,
I think we have common ground, but have different exemplars in mind. You are right about deserts. I was thinking more of moist soils and ocean, where the convection of water vapour does make a difference due to radiative properties. As it rises higher, the chance of the radiative energy it emits escaping to space rather than being re-absorbed increases. So this is another factor in the maintenance of the lapse rate.
tallbloke says: March 8, 2014 at 10:29 am
Hi Ben,
I think we have common ground.
Sure hope so, this is all basic meteorology 😉
But it seems to be a forgotten science.
You had a post long time ago based on this article:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html
Have a look at the tephigram, especially the highlighted text below it.
Spectacularly wrong on almost everything.
tallbloke says: March 8, 2014 at 10:29 am
“You are right about deserts. I was thinking more of moist soils and ocean, where the convection of water vapour does make a difference due to radiative properties.”
Tallbloke, just to be absolutely sure, the air above the deserts around 30N and S isn’t convecting, it is subducting. These deserts are at the receiving end of the Hadley cell circulation.
This is the most unbelievable mistake in the lapserates article I mentioned above.
I need to introduce a new quantity in the discussion of my ideas.
The surface area where no warm surface layer nor ice layer is present. This is the only place where the deep oceans can lose their heat.
I propose DOSCA: Deep Ocean Surface Cooling Area expressed as a percentage of total ocean surface area.
If DOSCA is 0% due either a lot of surface ice or a large warm surface layer, no energy from the deep oceans can escape to space.
Geothermal flux alone is enough to warm the average ocean column 1K every 5000 years.
We have more ocean floor than surface, hot vents, magma erupting at plate boundaries etc.etc
So the warming potential of all geothermal together is maybe as high as 1K every 2000 or 3000 years.
Since the cooling at high latitudes seems to balance this warming ON AVERAGE, DOSCA could work as an amplifier for eg the Milankovitch cycles and similar mechanisms (eg Svensmark)
Increased TSI reaching the oceans resulting in an increasing warm surface layer, letting the deep oceans warm up. decreasing TSI doing the opposite.
DOSCA = ~ 0% due to a large part of the oceans being covered with a surface ice layer in an ice age, could explain the rather abrupt ending of ice ages we see in the data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
@tallbloke, @Ben Wouters:
Re your 30N, S30 assertions. I observe the weather information of the island of Tenerife. This was initiated by my stay in Valle de Güimar during more than three decades (for 2-3 weeks in May or September). At about 9 – 10 o’clock local time (rarely later) the wind in Güimar is notably increasing, coming from the ocean and climbing into the mountains of Valle de Güimar. Note that the island it at ~30° latitude.
But this is not the main observation: in addition the wind does (almost) the very same regardless of the location on the island (from practically each of the 360° directions) — it goes from the ocean up into the mountains. This can be observed here (click on Estaciones Meteorológicas at the top and check the reported wind directions).
Can this observation be used to clear the convecting/subducting dilemma?
Chaeremon says: March 9, 2014 at 9:08 am
“Can this observation be used to clear the convecting/subducting dilemma?”
It’s not so much a dilemma as an often overlooked fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
the air over the 30 N and S deserts is descending as in every high pressure area, drying out and then warming up according to the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
(I’m not sure subducting is the right term I used, subsidence is the term I was thinking off)
About your observations: most probably a demonstration of the valley wind effect in mountainous areas. The sun warms the sun facing higher mountains, thermals form which “suck” air through the valleys into the mountains.
If you’re interested, this book has a very extensive explanation of the mechanism:
http://www.thermikwolke.de/thermals/index.html
Absolutely fascinating stuff.
Interesting notion, thermals form which “suck” air 😉
I’ve spoken with some paragliders who take the long route towards Puerto de la Cruz (opposite side [to Güimar] of the island) and they don’t know (or are not interested) where the “sucked” air goes for the very long rest of the day …
Chaeremon says: March 9, 2014 at 10:03 am
Interesting notion, thermals form which “suck” air 😉
Sounds strange, yet these thermals can create valley winds of 25 kts or more, pretty amazing.
Roger Andrews says: March 5, 2014 at 7:16 pm
But if this is the case, why is the Ontong Java plateau itself still there?
All very mysterious. Best ask a geologist 🙂
For some opinions from other geologists: http://www.mantleplumes.org/TopPages/PacificTop.html
Roger Andrews says: March 5, 2014 at 7:16 pm
why is the Ontong Java plateau itself still there?
All very mysterious. Best ask a geologist 🙂
I tried to post a link to a relevant site, but my posts didn’t come through.
Have a look at mantleplumes dot org
Click on Pacific behind Localities.
Ben: No idea why these last comments dropped into the spam bucket. Sorry about that.
tallbloke says: March 9, 2014 at 11:29 am
Ben: No idea why these last comments dropped into the spam bucket. Sorry about that
No problem, I assumed the site was on a blacklist or something like that.
I posted my last reply without any hiccup.
The plume site is a bit strange. Ought to be clean.
Seems to be run by http://community.dur.ac.uk/g.r.foulger/
tchannon says: March 9, 2014 at 8:56 pm
“The plume site is a bit strange. Ought to be clean.”
Tim, thanks for looking into this.
Will probably contact prof. Foulger to confirm my ideas about the young earth etc.
Ben Wouters
Thanks for the links to the geology sites. I’ve skimmed though them and come up with the following information:
The Ontong Java Plateau covers 1.5 – 2 million sq km, is over 30 km thick (from seismic and gravity data) and contains a volume of 40-60 million cu km. There seems to be no evidence that it was ever any larger than this. See:
Click to access Glad97_JGR.pdf
Click to access Richardson00_EPSL.pdf
It’s thought to have been caused by a mantle plume but there’s speculation that it may have been a result of an asteroid impact. See Figure 7 in:
http://www.mantleplumes.org/OJ_Impact.html
I’ll leave it to you to figure out how much heat a body of magma this size and shape would have released to the ocean.
Kerguelen, the second-largest volcanic plateau on your list is covered by 2-3km of sediments and may be of continental rather than oceanic origin:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/2/137.abstract
Roger Andrews says: March 10, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Thanks for looking into this.
We’ll never know the total amount of magma that erupted in the last 200 my.
Older oceanic eruptions will probably never be found.
Also a lot of these plateaus that erupted near a continent must have been sub ducted already.
see eg. http://www.livescience.com/784-giant-slab-earth-crust-core.html
or http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/07/scientists-to-study-earth-gaping-wound-deep-under-atlantic/
In the list with LIP’s I referenced, the following numbers are given
OJP 44,4
Hikurangi Plateau 2,7
Manihiki Plateau 8,8
I’m fine with these numbers as well. Used my reference 5 just for simplicity.
My point remains that all these eruptions are a much better explanation for the ~18K higher deep ocean temperatures than a few ppm CO2 in a cold thin atmosphere, that supposedly warmed these same deep oceans to depths of several kilometres. A believable mechanism has never been presented afaik.
Ben Wouters:
I haven’t seen any evidence that CO2 has any impact on ocean temperatures either.
One question you might look into is the impact of a constant geothermal heat flux of
101 watts/sq m“Should be 101 MILLIWATTS/sq m” – the average value for oceanic crust – on deep ocean temperatures. What, for example, would temperatures be with zero geothermal heat flux?Roger Andrews says: March 10, 2014 at 5:48 pm
“I haven’t seen any evidence that CO2 has any impact on ocean temperatures either.”
Yet climaclowns like these use it as a given: http://phys.org/news10978.html
I calculated the effect of the geothermal flux as ~1K / 5000 years for the average column.
see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-71347
But the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that the warming by all geothermal (except large magma eruptions) minus the cooling at high latitudes results in a very slow cooling of the deep oceans. (~1K / 2 – 5 million years)
Roger Andrews is that correct? 101watts per sq meter of geothermal heating? I was under the impression that it was much less. !00 watts is a lot of energy. pg
Good catch pg. I blew it. Should be 101 MILLIWATTS/sq m. Teach me not to ignore the fine print. Apologies to all.
No worries.
The 1K / 5000 year warming for the average ocean column is based on 100 mW/m^2 😉
No worries Roger. I once spent 10 days of wasted engineering work because of a decimal point error in a materials data book. At least here we have friends to catch us when we might error a bit. 🙂 pg
Measure twice, cut once. 😉
Measure with micrometer. mark with chalk, cut with axe. 😉
@Ben Wouters: how can we find out the amount of heat which sinks as part of defunct maritime organisms to the oceanic bottom, year after year? Whatever experiment and outcome, it could be beneficial for your thesis.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82761
Processed by Tim
Click for 1024 pixel wide version
From 54MB TIFF, cropped using NIP2 which can handle humongous filesizes with little memory, then statistical image enhancement using Image Analyser
Chaeremon says: March 29, 2014 at 4:09 pm
I want to stay away from these kind of discussions, because nobody knows the answer.
Same for hot vents, magma erupting at plate boundaries etc.etc.
Simple approach imo is look at the temperature record for the deep oceans, and apparently the net result from ALL warming (except large magma eruptions) vs the cooling at high latitudes is very slightly negative, about 1K every 2 – 5 million years.
For reference some background information.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change
Nice overview of earths history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Replace greenhouse gas warming with major magma eruptions and the whole thing begins to make sense (at least to me). Higher CO2 levels of course being caused by outgassing from the warmer oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
This is what happens when major magma eruptions are too far apart, giving the deep oceans enough time to cool down, allowing them to freeze over at the surface.
Chaeremon says: March 29, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Very much worth the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-U
Absolutely relevant to your question (no answer 😉 and my ideas.
@Ben Wouters: yes, great stuff 🙂 but if apparently huge and complex patterns are spent just a few seconds then my curiosity is severely unsatisfied and I don’t like the presentation and switch off 😦
Kristian says: April 4, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Actually every square meter of ocean floor adds ~100 mW to the deep oceans continuously.”
Really? So that’s how it works?
Unless you have convincing proof that numerous geologist are totally wrong, yes.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
and the many referenced articles.
We have a lot more ocean floor than ocean surface, we have ocean vents, oceanic ridges etc.etc.”
Er. Whatever you say, Ben …
Unless you have proof that the ocean floor is totally flat, and has vertical sides rising to the continents, no mountains rising from the floor with islands on top etc. etc. then indeed we have more ocean floor than ocean surface, So the warming floor surface is substantially larger than the number of square meters of ocean surface would suggest.
“You’re just stating all this as fact, as if you travelled back in time to witness it in person. ”
I’m using temperature reconstructions as referenced in my post. If you have different data then pse show me.
If anything wrong in the count of km^3 magma as listed then I’d like to have your correction, so I can correct my mistake.
Our current deep ocean temperature of ~273K has been reached by cooling down from ~290K.
Again show your reconstructions that show otherwise.
There is some discussion about when the early oceans cooled down and to what temperature (~350K or just 310K) but that they were created hot is beyond dispute. So again pse show your evidence to the contrary.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november9/ancient-sea-temperature-111109.html
@Ben Wouters March 29, 2014 at 5:04 pm:
Ben, the oceanic surfaces and bottoms are apparently connected by the oceanic organisms (as I suggested earlier). Example (little force as proof, but notably nevertheless):
Dr Paola Moffa-Sanchez, lead author from Cardiff University School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explained: “We used seafloor sediments taken from south of Iceland to study changes in the warm surface ocean current. This was done by analysing the chemical composition of fossilised microorganisms that had once lived in the surface of the ocean. These measurements were then used to reconstruct the seawater temperature and the salinity of this key ocean current over the past 1000 years.”
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=17589
(the English part)
Here we are Ben and others
Chapter 12. The Shape of the Earth, Heat Flow and Convection
Click to access TOE12.pdf
Anderson, Don L. Theory of the Earth. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications,
1989. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechBOOK:1989.001
For reference.
Simple calculation showing the effect of 100 mW/m^2 geothermal flux on ocean temperatures.
Average ocean depth ~3700m
At deep oceans temperature (~275K) the density of the water is ~1000 kg/m^3 and the specific heat
is ~4200 J/kg/K.
Amount of energy needed to warm a column of 3700m x 1m x 1m:
3700 x 1000 x 4200 = 1,554E+10
With a warming rate of 0,1 J/s this takes 1,554E+11 seconds.
Dividing by the number of seconds in a year results in 4927,7 year.
Nice round number to remember is 1K every 5000 years.
To warm all ocean water 275K (is roughly the total ocean heat content) would take
275 * 4927,7 = ~1,4 million years.
So in the 84 million years that the deep oceans have been cooling down since their last hot period geothermal flux alone added ~ 60 times the total oceanic heat content.
Chaeremon says: April 8, 2014 at 1:33 pm
thanks Chaeremon. I don’t think of this as a connection.
The organism are most probably Foraminifera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera.
When dead they sink to the ocean floor and form sediment layers.
These layers are used for reconstructions of ao temperature, depending on the species used
(living near the surface, at the bottom or somewhere in between)
I understand the Sahara “sand” consists of the same remnants of these poor foraminifera 😉
tchannon says: April 8, 2014 at 2:43 pm
“Here we are Ben and others”
Thanks Tim. Will read, but seems to give some numbers on the varies type of geothermal heat entering the oceans.
I avoided this by concluding from the temperature reconstruction that in spite of all the heat entering the deep oceans they still cooled down at 1K every 2-5 million years.
[…] another article https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-prese… I’ve shown that the deep oceans did cool down the last 84 million years with an average rate of […]