One side of the planet is cooling much faster than the other, say researchers

Posted: March 19, 2021 by oldbrew in History, research, Temperature
Tags:

Image credit: livescience.com

The problem is, the ‘wrong’ side is warmer than the other one. Enter Rodinia.
– – –
We’ve known for a long time that Earth’s fiery interior is destined to burn out in the distant future, although new research indicates that this process may be occurring faster on one side of the planet than the other, says IFL Science..

By analyzing the movement of continents and oceanic plates over the past 400 million years, researchers have determined that parts of the planet have remained more insulated than others, leading to an asymmetrical pattern of heat loss.

Deep within Earth’s interior, heat is continually being generated as radioactive elements degrade. At the same time, however, heat is being lost as it dissipates upwards through the crust.

The fact that this surface heat loss outweighs internal heat production means that the planet is cooling overall, and will one day become cold and lifeless.

Interestingly, though, this heat loss does not occur uniformly across the planet, as bulky landmasses provide more insulation than the thinner oceanic crust.

In other words, less heat is being lost in areas that are covered by continents, while regions that are covered by oceans cool much faster.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. gbaikie says:

    “The fact that this surface heat loss outweighs internal heat production means that the planet is cooling overall, and will one day become cold and lifeless.”

    Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that, before then Earth probably will be hit by planetary size impactor.

  2. ivan says:

    By analyzing the movement of continents and oceanic plates over the past 400 million years,

    Are they saying that they actually have records going back 400 million years, if so who wrote the first ones? This whole thing smells of computer modelling and we all know just how accurate that is – not.

    They also say the Pacific area is warmer than other parts even though it is losing heat faster, did they look at the volcanoes that surround that area and think they might have something to do with that.

    This whole ‘research’ looks like someone had some funds that they needed to use or lose and/or some professor need another paper published to keep tenure.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Check the half lives of the nuclear elements in the core before committing to cooling Earth theories.

  4. tom0mason says:

    Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the authors of the new study explain how they used models of tectonic plate cycles in order to demonstrate variations in heat loss across the planet over the past 400 million years. …

    See https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL092119

    So you get some data to verify your supposition and you find that it doesn’t quite. Well then, your supposition could well be wrong. Go away, think and measure more then come back with better.
    Not for modern science though, no lets just jig around with computer models, torturing the data, and make more assumptions …
    From the link
    By way of explanation, they propose that much of the Pacific mantle was once insulated by a long-lived supercontinent called Rondinia, which trapped a great deal of heat before it broke up around a billion years ago.
    It’s therefore possible that the heat trapped by this ancient insulating layer has not yet fully dissipated, and continues to affect the internal temperature of the Pacific hemisphere.

    I wonder how well that (Krister S. Karlsen, Clinton P. Conrad, Mathew Domeier, Reidar G. Trønnes ideas and assumptions) fits with the theory here —
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825204001011
    or here https://www.academia.edu/9320028/Late_Proterozoic_plate_tectonics_and_paleogeography_A_tale_of_two_supercontinents_Rodinia_and_Pannotia
    where the researchers had the honesty to outline their assumptions and methodology in fine detail.

  5. Phil Salmon says:

    What are the predicted future time points of changes caused by inner cooling of the earth?

    When will continental drift stop?

    When will the iron core freeze solid (so no more magnetic field)?

    Will there even be time for any of this to happen before the sun starts red giant expansion as early as a billion years from now?

  6. oldbrew says:

    Where’s our global warming?

  7. Jim says:

    Actually there is good science going back to rodinia. The magnetic data, and reading of positional data. Rock as it cools from lava assumes the magnetic data, from it’s environment, add the zircon data, helps to show the local environment. But, this article must have been a call for monies, nothing new here, but an interestingly wrong interpretation. Trying to get climate money for research? I guess a bad question still needs a truthful answer.

  8. Gamecock says:

    Oh noes !!!

  9. Gamecock says:

    ‘Deep within Earth’s interior, heat is continually being generated as radioactive elements degrade. At the same time, however, heat is being lost as it dissipates upwards through the crust.’

    Well, there’s 2,900 km of mantle between the core and the crust. That should be pretty good insulation. In fact, much of the core’s heat is primordial, retained from formation 4.5-4.0B years ago.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Unidentified heat sources…

    Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth’s heat

    “One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth’s heat energy,” says KamLAND collaborator Stuart Freedman of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California. “Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from another source is an unanswered question.”

    https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat/
    – – –
    Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1205

  11. Graeme No.3 says:

    FWIW There is a hypothesis that the magnetic liquid part of interior of the Earth is affected by variations in the solar electromagnetic emissions i.e. a bit of churning induced, causing some heat generation.
    I am not aware of any evidence but SOLAR CHURNING would sound scary to the gullible, and divert their minds from blaming ‘carbon’.

  12. Phil Salmon says:

    Over the last 500 million years the predominance of land surface has moved from the southern to the northern hemisphere.

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    So they found that 20 miles of rock doesn’t conduct heat to the atmosphere as well as 10 miles of rock under a 4 C working fluid of the oceans that evaporates at the top…

    Um, isn’t that obvious?

  14. Gamecock says:

    “Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from another source is an unanswered question.”

    Correct. We can merely speculate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s