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

[XRose]

Yehren post this nonsense which calls GOD a liar by claiming thr unverse is billions of years old.
Quote: '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.'
For Yehrens enlightenment: Darwin's research on worms proves Earth and therefore the universe is as young as the Bible says.

 

[Yehren]

What no-one can understand is that Earth is filled with warm water.
GOD created Earth as a ball of water and basic elements.
The water separated out and fixed with elemnte to make all the oxides to make a hard shell-crust.

Scientists know very well what the composition of the Earth is, and it's not filled with warm water. And the Bible doesn't say it is. Turns out, earthquake waves tell us a great deal about the composition of the earth's interior.

 

[Yehren]

Phillip, it occurs to me that your issue with the thermal energy balance of the Earth, might be because you're thinking of it as an originally hot mass, which is now cooling. Is that the case?

That was the error Lord Kelvin made when he measured the heat flux of the Earth and found that if it was cooling from a molten stage, it could be no more than 100 million years old, and much more likely to be around 10 million years old.

Rutherford's work explained why Kelvin got it wrong (even though his calculations were correct and his application of thermodynamic theory was faultless). If you take a look at what Rutherford did, the solution might be obvious for you.

 

[Yehren]

Yehren post this nonsense which calls GOD a liar by claiming thr unverse is billions of years old.

You aren't God. And God hasn't said how old the Earth is.

For Yehrens enlightenment: Darwin's research on worms proves Earth and therefore the universe is as young as the Bible says.

You've been badly misled about that. But let's see your reasoning on that one. Hint: you're missing something that we see happening every day.

 

[FollowHim]

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" ""

What would be the most effective method to persuade those who don't believe in the existence of climate change (caused by human activity)?
Answer:
Step 1. Show the evolution of the CO2 content in the atmosphere in the last 800,000 years (e.g. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html). Underline that there is a correlation between global CO2 content in the atmosphere and climate (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html ). Climate change occurred in the past, so that the existence of climate change on its own should be out of question. (Now let's come to human activity as a cause of climate change).
Step 2. Note that not even during the interglacial (hot) periods CO2 exceeded 300 ppm (worldwide average), but after the start of the so-called industrial revolution (beginning of massive use of fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas) the CO2 level started to rocket and reached 400 ppm (it grows now at a rate of approx. 2 ppm/year). The point becomes finding what causes such an anomalous growth of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which is likely to bring climate change if not cured).
Step 3. Observe two years of CO2 man-made emissions (animation on page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ff.html) and reflect on the fact that fossil fuels are relatively poor in 13C, a stable isotope of Carbon. By burning 13C depleted fuel, people generates 13C depleted CO2 that mixes in the atmosphere (initially in the same hemisphere where fossil fuel is burned). Observe how the 13C content of atmospheric CO2 diminishes in time (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/gallery/figures/co2c13_surface.png ) with an obvious correlation to the CO2 content (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/gallery/figures/co2_surface.png), proving that the excess CO2 is man-made (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html , and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html).
Step 4. Put all together and conclude that A) mankind is emitting to the atmosphere CO2 from burning fossil fuels at a rate that exceeds the natural capacity of the planet to take it back, and that B) such excessive CO2 is likely to cause severe climate changes (if no remedies are taken).
Step 5 (optional, but strongly recommended). Start campaigning in favour of CO2 emission reduction, including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS, see for example http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/).

It is not unreasonable to put forward vulcanoes as the cause of the rise in CO2.
The above argument shows there is a way of measuring fossil fuel CO2 as opposed to other sources and see if this is the main cause of a current situation.

 

[Yehren]

It is not unreasonable to put forward vulcanoes as the cause of the rise in CO2.

Volcanoes emit rather low levels of CO2. The amount humans produce every year is many times the amount a major volcanic eruption gives off. I would think that most of the carbon that is emitted from vulcanism, would be depleted in C-14, other than a small amount produced by radioactive isotopes from underground nitrogen.

 

[Philip James]

Phillip, it occurs to me that your issue with the thermal energy balance of the Earth, might be because you're thinking of it as an originally hot mass, which is now cooling. Is that the case?

Yes. And no physical scientist today would disagree that the Earth has been cooling for 4 billion years or so..

As for Kelvin and Rutherford, i thought you might enjoy this: Kelvin, Rutherford, and the Age of the Earth: I, The Myth | 3 Quarks Daily

...

Have you tried to find info on the effect of increased uvb absorbtion on ocean temps yet?

If you haven't, don't bother. There isn't any. Lots on the effect on organisms but none on the effect on temp.

Dont you find that odd?

In the early 70's no uvb reached the surface. It was all absorbed in the atmospere.

Ozone levels depleted rapidly from about 1975 to about 2005, with corresponding increases in uvb exposure at the surface.

Uvb penetrates 10s of meters into the ocean...

I can give you a hypothesis of a natural ozone/co2 cycle that explains current temp changes without the need for violating the 2LoT. Are you interested in hearing it?

I believe it builds on Dr. Ward's work on ozone depletetion: The Ozone Depletion Theory of Global Warming

Peace!

 

[Philip James]

What would be the most effective method to persuade those who don't believe in the existence of climate change (caused by human activity)?

Demonstrating that increasing co2 concentration ,at the expense of o2 concentraion ,between a heat source and a thermometer raises the temp of the thermometer would work for me....

Good luck ;)

 

[Yehren]

Phillip, it occurs to me that your issue with the thermal energy balance of the Earth, might be because you're thinking of it as an originally hot mass, which is now cooling. Is that the case?

Yes. And no physical scientist today would disagree that the Earth has been cooling for 4 billion years or so..

The problem is that heat is being continously generated in the Earth from breakdown of radioactive elements. It's the reason that Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun.

Have you tried to find info on the effect of increased uvb absorbtion on ocean temps yet?

If you haven't, don't bother. There isn't any. Lots on the effect on organisms but none on the effect on temp.

Probably because UVb is very damaging to cells in larger amounts, but doesn't warm things up much.

Dont you find that odd?

It's the consequence of UVb having very short waves.

Visible light, especially the longer waves, is pretty good at warming things by radiation. UV isn't nearly as effective. And even if all of the present UVb only recently got to the Earth (which is wrong, given that UVb has been generating vitamin D in humans for a long time) it would make up only 5% of UV rays, and a tiny amount of total radiation striking the Earth. Longer waves are much less effective in causing heating. It's why you don't see restaurants keeping food warm with UV light.

In the early 70's no uvb reached the surface.

That would be odd, since UVB on skin produces vitamin D. Always has. Only about 5% of UVb makes it to the Earth's surface, though.

It was all absorbed in the atmospere.

No, I don't think so.

Because all sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal stratospheric ozone levels, it is always important to protect your skin and eyes from the sun.
Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion | US EPA

The issue is how much, if at all, it warms the Earth. The greatest amount of warming is longer IR rays. Even shorter IR rays don't warm things very much.

Earth's internal heat budget is fundamental to the thermal history of the Earth. The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47 ± 2 {47\pm 2} 47±2terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth
Earth's internal heat budget - Wikipedia

This is why the Earth gives off more heat than would be expected from a cooling molten body.

I can give you a hypothesis of a natural ozone/co2 cycle that explains current temp changes without the need for violating the 2LoT.

Carbon dioxide already does that without violating the second law. But I'd be pleased to hear it.

 

[Yehren]

Demonstrating that increasing co2 concentration ,at the expense of o2 concentraion ,between a heat source and a thermometer raises the temp of the thermometer would work for me....

The greenhouse effect was first realized in the 1800s, when it was noted that CO2 absorbed infrared light. This warms it up. You only need an IR spectrophotometer to demonstrate this. This is what happens in the atmosphere, warming it up. More CO2 means more warming.

Your setup would actually result in a cooler thermometer (but warmer gas between the source and the thermometer) as the carbon dioxide would absorb some of the IR rays and prevent them from warming the thermometer.

 

[Josho]

I think what is being seen is increase in temperatures in high population density areas and around those areas. Car fumes, an increase of air conditioner units pumping warm air outside, and a massive increase in electricity usage, is probably having an effect on temperatures around those high density areas and around them.

I think I have even heard something like London can be 5c warmer compared to places outside of the city of London.

 

[Yehren]

I think what is being seen is increase in temperatures in high population density areas and around those areas. Car fumes, an increase of air conditioner units pumping warm air outside, and a massive increase in electricity usage, is probably having an effect on temperatures around those high density areas and around them.

Urban areas are huge generators of carbon dioxide automobiles are a big source, but not the only source. And because they tend to replace fields with concrete, they get hotter in the sunlight.

I think I have even heard something like London can be 5c warmer compared to places outside of the city of London.

Yep.

 

[Philip James]

The problem is that heat is being continously generated in the Earth from breakdown of radioactive elements. It's the reason that Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives from the Sun

Radiogenic heat has certainly extended the time that the Earth requires until it can cool near to the ideal BB on which 'GHE' models are based..

That would be odd, since UVB on skin produces vitamin D.

I will accept that correction. I should have said significantly less UVB reached the surface in the early 70's.

The dramatic rise in UVB exposure from 1979-2005 has been well documented, as has its effects on organisms.

for example: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/1-uvexposureha.jpg

The issue is how much, if at all, it warms the Earth. The greatest amount of warming is longer IR rays.

hmmm. it is my understanding that the greatest amount of solar induced warming (of the surface and ocean) comes from the visible light spectrum. Do you have a source that suggests its IR?

I will also point out that UV is a far greater energy level than IR. I think Dr.Ward's site that I linked you to, has a pretty good discussion on this. (although his ideas on how that energy propagates through space are certainly unorthodox).

For example, it doesnt matter how much IR at 15 microns you have you cant disassociate o2 with it...

Further IR only penetrates ocean water a short distance (mm's ?) while UVB penetrates 10s of meters below the surface.. (which do you think more likely to warm the oceans?)

Regardless, I hope you would agree, that where solar radiation is absorbed, there will be an increase in temp (heating).

But I'd be pleased to hear it.

Cool.

Now I think Dr. Ward did a fine job showing the link between vulcanism (his area of expertise) and ozone depletion (from outgassed crine and bromine). And the correlation of ozone depletion and observed temp rise, so I'm not going to rehash that here.

I will start by saying that if it is indeed UVB (and where it is absorbed) that has been driving the recent (30-40 year) temp trend then:

If ozone concentration recovers significantly stratospheric temperatures must increase, followed by decreasing ocean and tropospheric temps..

If the ozone concentration remains relatively stable, temperatures will remain relatively stable

If the ozone concentration decreases then stratospheric temps must fall, followed by increasing ocean and tropospheric temps.



The missing piece here is ozone production!

Earth has an abundance of O2 thanks to plant life, the limiting factors for the creation of ozone are the available amount of UVC to disassociate 02 and thus the supply of atomic O (uvb just causes O3 and 02 to play hotpotato)

however there is another source of O that co2 has an effect on!

Infalling O from the mesopause...

CO2 governs cooling in the upper mesosphere, preventing some O (and N and etc..) from escaping the TOA (which I will define here as the mesopause)

If you increase the concentration of CO2 you increase the number of collisions between O and colder slower CO2, decreasing the amount exiting the TOA and increasing the amount slowing and falling back towards the stratopause.

So the natural cycle works like this:

1. ozone depletion cause less UVB absorption in the stratosphere and its subsequent cooling
2. more UVB reaches earth (and ocean) surface
3. increased absorption by oceans raises ocean temps
4. warmer oceans dissolve less co2
5. atmospheric co2 concentration rises
6. upper mesosphere cools infalling O concentration increases
7. ozone concentration rises with subsequent stratospheric warming from increased UVB absorption
8. oceans cool due to less uvb absorption
9. colder oceans absorb more co2
10. atmospheric co2 concentrations fall
11. upper mesosphere warms, more O escapes the TOA
12. ozone concentration decreases.. go to step 1



If this is the case, then yes there was induced human global warming when we pumped a bunch of crine into the stratosphere...

The irony of course is that if long term co2 rise leads to cooling, we would be slowing that cooling by restricting our co2 outputs. ;)

Peace!

 

[Philip James]

The greenhouse effect was first realized in the 1800s, when it was noted that CO2 absorbed infrared light. This warms it up. You only need an IR spectrophotometer to demonstrate this. This is what happens in the atmosphere, warming it up. More CO2 means more warming.

Co2 absorption of IR from the surface is insignificant next to that of h2o in the troposphere, but I would point out that more (of either) means that the IR from the surface will indeed be absorbed and thermalized more quickly. It will also cool more rapidly when it has reached an altitude where it can freely radiate. This will increase the rate of convection. Increasing the rater of convection will increase the rate of evaporation from the surface which will increase the rate at which the surface cools...

Your setup would actually result in a cooler thermometer (but warmer gas between the source and the thermometer) as the carbon dioxide would absorb some of the IR rays and prevent them from warming the thermometer.

Bingo. GHE is dead in the water right there...

 

[Yehren]

Co2 absorption of IR from the surface is insignificant next to that of h2o in the troposphere,

It's merely causing the increase in temps we see now. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere as a whole, has not changed. But the amount of carbon dioxide has rapidly increased. And it absorbs IR radiation at wavelengths water vapor does not.

but I would point out that more (of either) means that the IR from the surface will indeed be absorbed and thermalized more quickly. It will also cool more rapidly when it has reached an altitude where it can freely radiate.[/quote]

Show us your evidence for it actually happening.

This will increase the rate of convection. Increasing the rater of convection will increase the rate of evaporation from the surface which will increase the rate at which the surface cools...

That hasn't been what the data show. In fact, as the lower atmosphere has heated up, the upper atmosphere is actually cooler.

 

[Yehren]

Bingo. GHE is dead in the water right there...

You still don't get it. On Earth, when carbon dioxide absorbs more IR, the atmosphere heats up. And that's what's being measured, just as the spectrophotometer works.

 

[Yehren]

hmmm. it is my understanding that the greatest amount of solar induced warming (of the surface and ocean) comes from the visible light spectrum. Do you have a source that suggests its IR?

IR warms up things more than shorter wavelengths. It's why people use IR bulbs to keep things warm. UV, having very short waves, is not nearly as efficient.

If this is the case, then yes there was induced human global warming when we pumped a bunch of crine into the stratosphere...

Actually, when we were releasing huge amounts of crinated gases into the atmosphere, (1970s) the atmosphere was cooling. And now that the ozone layer is healing,
A hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is healing and in turn reversing changes it caused to the flow of winds over the southern hemisphere, a study discovers.

Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder say this is due in part to a ban on ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the 1980s.
Earth's ozone layer is HEALING due to a reduction in damaging chemicals | Daily Mail Online

we're seeing record high temperatures (as carbon dioxide continues to rise). If your model is right, we should be seeing cooling.

 

[Yehren]

I will also point out that UV is a far greater energy level than IR.

This is easy to do. Put your hand near a "black light" (UV bulb). Notice any change in temperature on your hand. Then do the same at the same distance with an IR light. Such as is used in restaurants. You'll notice the IR light warms you up more.

"But the UV is higher energy!" Yep. So what's going on here?

What we experience as heat is just vibration of molecules. Molecules will only vibrate if they absorb photons whose energies correlate very specifically to the strength of the bonds in the molecule. For the majority of materials this equates to light with a wavelength of approximately 20,000 nm to 2500 nm. It just so happens that the IR spectral range encompasses these wavelengths while the other spectral ranges do not. As a consequence, IR feels warm and other wavelengths not so much (care: this does not mean other wavelengths cannot warm you in some fashion). When UV photons are absorbed by a molecule they cause other things to occur, such as electronic transitions which make electrons jump around and get silly.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kutzi/why_do_infrared_light_produce_more_heat_than/

Since thermal energy is the sum of the kinetic energies of all the atoms in a substance, IR causes thermal energy to increase. Since chemical reactions are mediated by the movement of valence electrons, UV doesn't cause a direct heating of a substance.

 

[Marymog]

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" ""

Thank you for the good news. More humans have died because of COOLER (cold) climates than warm climates. Also we are able to produce more crops to feed more people when it is warmer. God is in control....not man.

Science Mary :)

 

[Yehren]

Thank you for the good news. More humans have died because of COOLER (cold) climates than warm climates. Also we are able to produce more crops to feed more people when it is warmer.

There's bad news for you...

New research suggests that declining levels of iron, zinc and protein resulting from high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are putting human health at risk, especially in the developing world.

In a paper published in Nature several years ago, Harvard scientist Dr. Sam Myers and other researchers showed that staple food crops lose between five and ten percent of iron, zinc and protein when grown at 550 parts per million of carbon. This led them to wonder how many people would be at risk of nutrient deficiencies if they maintained their current intake of these crops.

They found that 150 to 200 hundred million more people would likely be pushed into nutrient deficiencies, on top of the millions of people who already suffer from this condition.

Across the world today, Myers says, around two billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. “In the studies that we've done, we've looked at how many people would become newly deficient, but, of course, there are also hundreds of millions or billions of people who would have their deficiencies further exacerbated,” he points out.
Global warming threatens nutrition levels in staple crops