Tim Cullen: What a Wonderful Water World

Posted: December 24, 2012 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Clouds, general circulation, Ocean dynamics, sea ice, Uncertainty
Comments
  1. Max™‮‮ says:

    Now this: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/image191.jpeg is something which seems obvious after looking at it, yet I never really thought would line up like that.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Yeah, eye opener isn’t it? :)

    Coupled with Tim’s observation of the extent to which water penetrates the Earth’s crust, it makes a strong argument for the primacy of water as the controller of temperature from many kilometres below the surface, to many kilometres above it.

  3. tchannon says:

    I don’t expect a great effect on Earth but I suspect it is ground heat which is the real reason for the surface temperature of Venus which is well in excess of the maximum solar flux can reasonably give.

  4. oldbrew says:

    What might the surface temperature of earth be if its atmospheric pressure was 92 times greater i.e. like Venus?

  5. wayne says:

    oldbrew, “What might the surface temperature of earth be if its atmospheric pressure was 92 times greater i.e. like Venus?” Since the air species ratios are assumed the same, you just extend the pressure range using Poisson to get the potential temperature at the ELR:

    Φ = 216.77 * (92*101325/22700)^0.190259 or somewhat close to 681 K at the surface.

  6. wayne says:

    oldbrew, curiously with Venus’s orbit 0.723 that of Earth’s orbit and using instead Earth’s TOA alt and temp and Venus’s composition:

    Φ = 216.77*(1/√0.723) * (92*101325/22700)^0.1716 or 716 K. Not very far off between the two atmosheres. Off a mere 2.5%. Yes, it seems it must be TD at play in the troposphere and that seems the only simple and plausible explanation. An exponent of 0.176 instead of 0.172 brings it to the 735 K. Very curious!

    Big question is can that 2.5% be also explained some other way?

    Maybe the 216.77 K also needs a correction to allow for the 96.5% of GHG atmosphere on Venus.

  7. Max™‮‮ says:

    I can’t help but wonder what a global resurfacing event would do regarding heat flow into the atmosphere, also curious how much it would affect the mass of the atmosphere.

    I don’t think Venus needs to be treated as though it has been in this state for 4 billion years though, sometime in the past it underwent some rather… energetic events, to say the least.

  8. Richard says:

    Hmm. If you are talking about the Water planet we live on, surely the below ‘surface’ temps for the first few Kilometers should be for the deep Ocean, not on land. An even more interesting profile I believe ( a nearly vertical line with some wiggles in it?).

  9. Richard says:

    A standard Ocean profile will ‘kick’ the surface temps to the left for the first ~3-4Km down to <4C for instance.

  10. Tim Cullen says:

    Richard says: December 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    A standard Ocean profile will ‘kick’ the surface temps to the left for the first ~3-4Km down to <4C for instance.

    There seems to be a huge gap in our knowledge… well definitely in my knowledge.
    I haven’t encountered a study that attempts to join up the oceanic water temperatures “dot” with the oceanic crust temperatures “dot”.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/temperature_depth_jpg_image.html

    Perhaps the Challenger Deep gives us a clue:

    Potential temperature increased from 7500 db to the bottom at a constant rate of 0.9 m°C/1000 db.

    Deep CTD Casts in the Challenger Deep, Mariana Trench
    KEISUKE TAIRA, DAIGO YANAGIMOTO and SHOJI KITAGAWA

    http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6103/61030447.pdf

  11. Tim Cullen says:

    PS: Submarine aquifers open up some interesting possibilities :-)

    Left field: harvesting groundwater from the seabed

    But with large scale water projects off the agenda for now – harvesting Tasmanian water would cost perhaps $1 billion – the next idea is dubbed the Submarine Hydro Energy System (SHES). And it may have more chance of seeing the light of day because water is really the byproduct; the key potential, said Martin, is it could generate baseload, emissions-free energy at a paltry 3 cents per kilowatt hour.

    It relies on the fact that aquifers don’t only run under the land, they run under the seabed as well – and in some places the groundwater leaks out through seeps. The density difference between salt and freshwater means the fresh rises to the surface, a dynamic Docklands hopes to harness through “simple collection systems, power lines, switches and hydro-generators”.

    http://www.ben-global.com/StoryView.asp?storyID=9643381&section=Select+Site+Section

    Slideshow: http://www.slideshare.net/docscipark/submarine-hydro-energy#btnNext

  12. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:

    Very nice presentation…

    Salt seems to be the dominate mineral in ocean water. So where did the salt come from on the land?
    It is flammable so cannot possibly come from volcanic activity.
    The dating of it is based on the dry form.
    It is found in much higher elevations and some sea life have been captured into it.

    It used to be used to find oil deposits…
    Older volcanic activity has pressurized markings of being under immense pressure in the over billion year study.
    Why is our poles ice in ONLY the millions of years?

    Is not the evidence showing vastly more salt water?
    And why do meteors show they are virtually identical to our oceans composition?