Earth is Warming from Inside out NOT Outside in and that is Causing our Climate Change!

[GISMYS_7]

Earth is Warming from Inside out NOT Outside in and that is Causing our Climate Change! Proof is the huge increase

of worldwide volcanoes and Artic ice caps melting from the bottom to top.​

Strange!!! "science" seems to have no clue OR is it that man made climate change is just a huge lie?
Mike from around the world on the Paul Bigley program on youtube Talks about earth warming from the inside out and volcano heat vents under the oceans giving off huge amounts of heat! Google===
"" Breaking News: "Neutron Star Hits Earth With Massive Gamma Wave Of Energy" ""

 

[John Caldwell]

We are taught that the earth's core is as hot as the surface of the sun. Radiaoactive heating (in the lithosphere and mantle...not the core) accounts for 50% of the earth's heat (given off by the earth). So I can believe your report.

 

[Yehren]

We are taught that the earth's core is as hot as the surface of the sun. Radiaoactive heating (in the lithosphere and mantle...not the core) accounts for 50% of the earth's heat (given off by the earth). So I can believe your report.

Reconstructions of long-term ground surface heat flux changes from deep-borehole temperature data
Author links open overlay panelD.Yu.Demezhko
A.A.Gornostaeva
Institute of Geophysics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Amundsena 100, Yekaterinburg, 620016, Russia
Abstract
Based on analysis of geothermal data from the Ural superdeep borehole (SG-4) and Onega parametric borehole, the first reconstructions of ground surface heat flux changes for the last 40 kyr have been made. The increase in heat flux during the Pleistocene-Holocene warming (20-10 ka) proceeded ~ 2 kyr earlier than the growth in surface temperature; reaching the maximum value of 0.08-0.13 W/m2 at ~ 13 ka, the heat flux was reduced. The coordinated changes in heat flux and average annual insolation at 60° N at 5-24 ka indicate that the orbital factors were the main cause of climatic changes in this period. The correlations between the changes in heat flux and CO2 content in the Antarctic ice cores and the temperature changes are analyzed.

There are parts of Canada where heat flux is increasing. So it's not a completely crazy idea. However, the changes are not of much consequence to atmospheric temperatures. A change of one-seventh of a watt per square meter of ground would not be noticeable without some very sensitive instruments.

 

[GISMYS_7]

Reconstructions of long-term ground surface heat flux changes from deep-borehole temperature data
Author links open overlay panelD.Yu.Demezhko
A.A.Gornostaeva
Institute of Geophysics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Amundsena 100, Yekaterinburg, 620016, Russia
Abstract
Based on analysis of geothermal data from the Ural superdeep borehole (SG-4) and Onega parametric borehole, the first reconstructions of ground surface heat flux changes for the last 40 kyr have been made. The increase in heat flux during the Pleistocene-Holocene warming (20-10 ka) proceeded ~ 2 kyr earlier than the growth in surface temperature; reaching the maximum value of 0.08-0.13 W/m2 at ~ 13 ka, the heat flux was reduced. The coordinated changes in heat flux and average annual insolation at 60° N at 5-24 ka indicate that the orbital factors were the main cause of climatic changes in this period. The correlations between the changes in heat flux and CO2 content in the Antarctic ice cores and the temperature changes are analyzed.

There are parts of Canada where heat flux is increasing. So it's not a completely crazy idea. However, the changes are not of much consequence to atmospheric temperatures. A change of one-seventh of a watt per square meter of ground would not be noticeable without some very sensitive instruments.

40 active volcanos already this year putting out more CO2 than all mankind for 10 years!!!

 

[Yehren]

40 active volcanos already this year putting out more CO2 than all mankind for 10 years!!!

Nope.

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement production (green line) have risen to more than 35 billion metric tons per year, while volcanoes (purple line) produce less than 1 billion metric tons annually. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov

 

[Philip James]

Well, one thing is certain: a cooler atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface.
The second law of thermodynamics remains in effect.

Peace!

 

[Yehren]

Well, one thing is certain: a cooler atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface.
The second law of thermodynamics remains in effect.

Turns out the atmosphere is warming. And yes, that warms the surface. Measure the temperature of the surface soil on a cold day and on a hot day, and see what you find. Might be a revelation about thermodynamics.

 

[GISMYS_7]

Nope.

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement production (green line) have risen to more than 35 billion metric tons per year, while volcanoes (purple line) produce less than 1 billion metric tons annually. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov

Nope.

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement production (green line) have risen to more than 35 billion metric tons per year, while volcanoes (purple line) produce less than 1 billion metric tons annually. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov

Nope.

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, human emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement production (green line) have risen to more than 35 billion metric tons per year, while volcanoes (purple line) produce less than 1 billion metric tons annually. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.
Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities? | NOAA Climate.gov

BACK IN 2016, the world did not have 40 active volcanoes the first6 months of the year!

 

[Yehren]

BACK IN 2016, the world did not have 40 active volcanoes the first6 months of the year!

There are over 500 active volcanoes on Earth. But they don't put out significant amounts of carbon dioxide, compared to human activities, as you have seen. The graph shows that they put out a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide humans do.

In fact, a major eruption even will actually cool the atmosphere somewhat. Do you understand why?

Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees F at the height of the impact.
Volcanoes Can Affect Climate

 

[Philip James]

Hello Yehren,

Turns out the atmosphere is warming.

The troposphere has warmed slightly over the last 40 years, but the atmosphere as a whole has cooled.

Observed reduced drag on satellites is evidence that the TOA has contracted and thus either the pressure has increased or the temp has decreased as per the ideal gas law.

And yes, that warms the surface.

Heat transfer is always naturally from a warmer object to a colder object and never the reverse without compensation.

(Slower cooling is not heating)

I would also point out that models built on a fundamentaly flawed assumption are doomed to continue to fail no matter how many 'epicycles' might be added.

In the case of the GHE , that assumption is that the sun has warmed the Earth to its current temp, when in fact the Earth has cooled to its current temp despite 4 billion years of solar input..

Peace!

 

[Yehren]

The troposphere has warmed slightly over the last 40 years, but the atmosphere as a whole has cooled

No. The total thermal energy of the atmosphere is much higher now. Because more heat is being trapped in the lower atmosphere, less of it is getting to the upper atmosphere. But because it's much less massive than the lower atmosphere, the total thermal energy is higher.

But reduced drag on satellites is the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere:

(Phys.org)—A team of scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory, Old Dominion University, and the University of Waterloo reports the first direct evidence that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activity are propagating upward to the highest regions of the atmosphere. The observed CO2 increase is expected to gradually result in a cooler, more contracted upper atmosphere and a consequent reduction in the atmospheric drag experienced by satellites. The team published its findings in Nature Geoscience on November 11, 2012.

The team of Dr. John Emmert, Dr. Michael Stevens, and Dr. Douglas Drob from NRL's Space Science Division; Dr. Peter Bernath from Old Dominion University; and Dr. Chris Boone from the University of Waterloo in Canada studied eight years of CO2 measurements made by the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE), a scientific satellite mission funded primarily by the Canadian Space Agency. ACE determines vertical profiles of CO2 and many other atmospheric gases by measuring how the atmosphere absorbs sunlight at different wavelengths as the Sun rises and sets relative to the spacecraft.
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html

I would also point out that models built on a fundamentaly flawed assumption are doomed to continue to fail no matter how many 'epicycles' might be added.

Models of carbon dioxide warming prepared decades ago, accurately predicted the warming trend we see today. Can't get better validation than that. Would you like me to show you that?

In the case of the GHE , that assumption is that the sun has warmed the Earth to its current temp,

Yes. The vast majority of thermal energy at the surface is due to sunlight. I believe I showed the actual heat flux at the surface from thermal energy within the Earth, and it's negligible relative to radiant warming.

when in fact the Earth has cooled to its current temp despite 4 billion years of solar input..

The Earth's surface is significantly warmer now than it was just a few decades ago.

 

[Philip James]

No. The total thermal energy of the atmosphere is much higher now.

If the overall temperature of the atmosphere were increasing then the ideal gas law dictates that the atmosphere must expand or its pressure must increase or some combination of the two..

Because more heat is being trapped in the lower atmosphere, less of it is getting to the upper atmosphere.

Poppycock..

But reduced drag on satellites is the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere:

That, and less uvb heating of the upper atmosphere due to reduced ozone levels...

But yes, increasing the amount of co2 at the expense of O increases the emissivity of the atmosphere thus more IR is emitted for any given temp..

And as co2 governs radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere, increasing its concentration increases the rate at which it radiatively cools to space...

Models of carbon dioxide warming prepared decades ago, accurately predicted the warming trend we see today. Can't get better validation than that. Would you like me to show you that?

Haha, sure show me. I will point out here as well that correlation does not prove causation..

Yes. The vast majority of thermal energy at the surface is due to sunlight.

I guess that would depend on how you define surface. Certainly water has kept the Earth surface cool and the resulting rock insulation slowed the cooling of the Earths interior.

(Water is Earths primary coolant.. Co2s cooling effect is almost insignificant in comparison..)

I believe I showed the actual heat flux at the surface from thermal energy within the Earth, and it's negligible relative to radiant warming.

If the geothermal heat flux is insignificant, how much more insignificant is the negative heat flux from the atmosphere to the surface?

Peace!

 

[Yehren]

If the overall temperature of the atmosphere were increasing then the ideal gas law dictates that the atmosphere must expand or its pressure must increase or some combination of the two..

(Phys.org)—A team of scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory, Old Dominion University, and the University of Waterloo reports the first direct evidence that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activity are propagating upward to the highest regions of the atmosphere. The observed CO2 increase is expected to gradually result in a cooler, more contracted upper atmosphere and a consequent reduction in the atmospheric drag experienced by satellites. The team published its findings in Nature Geoscience on November 11, 2012.
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html

In a planetary atmosphere, there are a few other issues to consider. Because more heat is being trapped in the lower atmosphere, less of it is getting to the upper atmosphere.

Poppycock..

Planetary physicists disagree with you. I'll go with the guys who make a living at it.

Models of carbon dioxide warming prepared decades ago, accurately predicted the warming trend we see today. Can't get better validation than that. Would you like me to show you that?

 

[Yehren]

Haha, sure show me.

A study released yesterday has taken the exercise to the next level. The research takes a comprehensive look at all the global climate models published from the 1970s to 2007, including the models used in the first three reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


“It’s always a sign that you’re onto a good project when your first thought is, ‘Why hasn’t anyone done this before?’” said lead study author Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked with Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists Henri Drake and Tristan Abbott and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. “No one has really gone back and gathered all of the old model predictions that were in the literature, in part because climate models have changed a lot.”


Most of these models are long since obsolete, replaced by far more advanced generations. And yet, most of them were spot on in their projections of how much the Earth would warm in the years after they were published in response to greenhouse gas emissions. Fourteen out of 17 models were found to be accurate.


The new study highlights a critically important, but sometimes overlooked, point about the way climate models work. The amount of warming they predict is a direct consequence of the greenhouse gas emissions they assume for the future. And accurately predicting carbon emissions is notoriously difficult—it depends on many human factors, including population growth, economic shifts and changes in the energy landscape.
Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming

Hansen's model was interesting, because it did predict three different scenarios, depending on how much carbon would be emitted. Turns out, he was right, too.

At a time when deniers were prediction colder climate, Hansen correctly predicted the amount of warming decades ahead of time. Pretty good, um?

I will point out here as well that correlation does not prove causation..

It's not correlation, but predictions that matter. Models are evaluated according to the predictions they make. As you see, all the models based on the amount of carbon dioxide, got it right. The deniers all got it wrong. This is why so few scientists deny the fact.

 

[Yehren]

I guess that would depend on how you define surface. Certainly water has kept the Earth surface cool

That's wrong. Oceans actually have a lower albedo than the average for land, which means the oceans cause more heating, not less. The albedo of oceans is about 0.06, while land goes from about 0.1 to 0.7 (the higher one is for ice-covered areas.)

Edit: This is why melting of Arctic sea ice is such a concern. It won't raise ocean levels, for reasons that are obvious, but it will effectively lower the average albedo of the Earth, and result in more warming.

Water is effective at transferring thermal energy from one place to another, because it has an extremely high specific heat. But it doesn't magically make the thermal energy go away; it just moves it somewhere else.

 

[Yehren]

If the geothermal heat flux is insignificant, how much more insignificant is the negative heat flux from the atmosphere to the surface?

Since the surface is heated by radiant energy, most of which passes through the atmosphere, the thermal energy from the sun is then radiated back in the form of infrared, some of which escapes to space, and some of which is retained in the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide absorbs infrared at wavelengths that other greenhouse gases do not, it tends to be pretty effective in raising atmospheric temperatures.

 

[Philip James]

Hansen's model was interesting, because it did predict three different scenarios, depending on how much carbon would be emitted. Turns out, he was right, too.

umm , no he was not. Here is a link to a GHE proponent which goes to great lengths to explain the epicycles required to 'tune' the prediction with observed reality: 30 years after Hansen’s testimony

Planetary physicists disagree with you. I'll go with the guys who make a living at it.

many do, some do not. agreement on models based on a fundamentally flawed paradigm can have all kinds of good math and yet still not properly represent reallity. Corpernicus ' circular orbit being, of course, an example..

Now since you like graphs, i thought you might like this one: Different Trends

Peace!

 

[Philip James]

Water is effective at transferring thermal energy from one place to another, because it has an extremely high specific heat. But it doesn't magically make the thermal energy go away; it just moves it somewhere else

Water transfers enormous amounts of energy because of its specific heat capacity . That is what makes it so effective at cooling the surface of the Earth.

Venus is a good example of what happens without water to cool the surface..

 

[Philip James]

That's wrong. Oceans actually have a lower albedo than the average for land, which means the oceans cause more heating, not less. The albedo of oceans is about 0.06, while land goes from about 0.1 to 0.7 (the higher one is for ice-covered areas.)

Edit: This is why melting of Arctic sea ice is such a concern. It won't raise ocean levels, for reasons that are obvious, but it will effectively lower the average albedo of the Earth, and result in more warming.

Water is effective at transferring thermal energy from one place to another, because it has an extremely high specific heat. But it doesn't magically make the thermal energy go away; it just moves it somewhere else.

Water cools the surface primarily by evaporation. Less see ice means more evaporation and a greater transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. (this is, of course, why temp annomolies are highest over ares of open water that were previously ice covered..

Note, I am not saying the polar ice caps warm the ocean (although that would be akin to the GHE backward thinking) but they do reduce the rate at which the ocean cools.

Water is peculiar that way.. floating on its liquid state it makes a great insulator..

And you really aren't disagreeing with me that water cools the surface are you?

Peace!

 

[Yehren]

Water cools the surface primarily by evaporation.

But as you now realize, the oceans actually cause higher temperatures than the land, because being darker, they absorb more radiant energy. And as I explained, water doesn't counter thermal energy. It just moves it to another place.

Venus is a good example of what happens without water to cool the surface..

Actually, it's a good example of high carbon dioxide content causing higher temperatures. Lack of liquid water is not why Venus is so hot. The fact that Venus is so hot, is why there is no liquid water on the surface.

You might have heard that Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. In fact, down at the surface of Venus it’s hot enough to melt lead. But why is Venus so hot?


Three words: runaway greenhouse effect. In many ways, Venus is a virtual twin of Earth. It has a similar size, mass and gravity as well as internal composition. But the one big difference is that Venus has a much thicker atmosphere. If you could stand on the surface of Venus, you would experience 93 times the atmospheric pressure we experience here on Earth; you’d have to dive down 1 km beneath the surface of the ocean to experience that kind of pressure. Furthermore, that atmosphere is made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide. As you’ve probably heard, carbon dioxide makes an excellent greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Sun. The atmosphere of Venus allows the light from the Sun to pass through the clouds and down to the surface of the planet, which warms the rocks. But then the infrared heat from the warmed rocks is prevented from escaping by the clouds, and so the planet warmed up.


The average temperature on Venus is 735 kelvin, or 461° C. In fact, it’s that same temperature everywhere on Venus. It doesn’t matter if you’re at the pole, or at night, it’s always 735 kelvin.


It’s believed that plate tectonics on Venus stopped billions of years ago. And without plate tectonics burying carbon deep inside the planet, it was able to build up in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide built up to the point that any oceans on Venus boiled away. And then the Sun’s solar wind carried the hydrogen atoms away from Venus, making it impossible to ever make liquid water again. The concentration of carbon dioxide just kept increasing until it was all in the atmosphere.
Why is Venus So Hot? - Universe Today