Climate change — Earth’s internal heat flux and localized hot spots

HEAT AND CONVECTION IN THE EARTH

Climate science has made a serious omission by not including the important impact of heat from our planet’s core on surface temperatures.

In 2010, Davies & Davies provided an estimate for the internal heat flux of the planet = 47 TW +/- 2 TW. This is the value you will find if you research conventional sources.

However, Davies & Davies only allowed for heat passing via conduction thru the mantle. They used the temperature profiles derived from approx. 38,347 borehole observations with a heavy bias for the developed regions of the world, a greatly diminished number in the oceans (only taken on continental shelves) , and negligible observations around seismically active or volcanic regions.

No observations were taken on Greenland, the Arctic, nor Antarctica, yet we know that these regions have very high geothermal heat flow. Very few observations were taken across the inaccessible regions of northern Canada and Siberia. Yet, with the Earth as a globe, the thinnest layer of the crust is across the high northern latitudes, with the North Pole being the thinnest point. Much  “modeling” followed by Davies and Davies to extrapolate the data to span the oceans.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256542901_Earth’s_surface_heat_flux

A deeper flaw in assessing heat flow via bore holes is the overall heat transfer equation:

Delta H = UADelta T., where U is the heat transfer coefficient and A is the area of transmission.

Delta T ( heat of ocean floor into the ocean waters) can be estimated  from Davies & Davies but  values for U and A are entirely unknown. What is the Area of the ocean floor ? And U is the most difficult, tiny value to determine yet it impacts this calculation most profoundly.

The next paper was published in 2017 by L.B. Bezrukov et al wherein his team provided rough estimates of the energy carried with the gases vented from the planet. No one had thought of this before !!! They deduced a heat flux ranging between 300 to 420 TW.

https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2016/20/epjconf_quark2016_02004.pdf

Then we have even more heat provided from the liquids venting from the Earth. Liquids convey heat via both conduction and convection. Moreover, all of the acid gases venting from myriad hydrothermal vents, rifts, ridges, and submarine volcanoes react exothermically with the alkaline ocean waters, so we have the heat of reaction dissipated into the ocean waters ( heat of hydration plus heat of neutralization). This heat input is not trivial.

Then we have the heat of planetary thermal decompression and the heat of tidal pumping. Although tidal pumping is constant, thermal decompression has varied over geological time scales. These heat sources are not trivial in the entire heat balance.

Recall that Herndon, van Flandern, and Tuttle describes the planetary-centric fission reactors as common to all major celestial objects. From the New Horizons mission, we know that Pluto has a mysterious internal heat sources causing active lava flows of nitrogen/water plus mountain ranges of nitrogen/water ice as high as the Rockies.

We do know that all ice core data shows that in prior epochs, the uptick in CO2 LAGGED the uptick in heat. The latest observations by French glaciologists allowed for glacial compression and degassing to arrive at a 200 year lag. The Sun did not cause changes in CO2 levels.

In discussions with those attributing climate change as due to solar variations, it is important to point out that the areas having the thinnest crust ( closest to the Earth’s engine) are the ones inducing major weather and climactic variations. They are localized, not spread uniformly around the world, as is solar radiation.

(1) Since the Earth is a globe, the landless North Pole is the broad region with the thinnest part of the lithosphere and thus is the closest to the Earth’s heat engine. The Gakkel Ridge system, spanning the Arctic, is 3 to 5 km below sea level, with submarine volcanoes arrayed along the length of the ridge. Dr. Sam Carana describes that directly under the North Pole there is a “cluster of CO2-rich explosive volcanoes”.

(2) The Mariana Trench extends 11 km below sea level. The warm body of water in the western Pacific which drives the El Niño is centered right over the Mariana Trench. The Mariana Trench is filled with submarine volcanoes, hydrothermal vents and geological fissures. There is even the Champagne Vent, so named because of the champagne-colored vent stream of liquid CO2.

(3) Antarctica’s Denman subglacial trench extends 3.5 km below sea level, the Byrd subglacial basin extends 2.9 km below sea level and the Bentley subglacial trench extends 2.6 km below sea level. Glaciologists from Washington Univ. (St. Louis) describe the bottom of the Bentley trench as a “magma blowtorch”.

Again, these three (3) points are LOCALIZED hot spots but they have dominant impact on climactic conditions  — specifically the movement of water thru the oceans and atmosphere. James Edward Kamis has much more to share in his concepts of Plate Climatology.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55315cdae4b03d5a7f6f23e1/t/5c363e5e40ec9a23cdde790c/1547058785801/PlateClimatologyTheory+7+October+2014.pdf

All of the temperature measurements by the meteorological agencies have been made on the SURFACE and satellite measurements have been ignored even though NASA’s recent TIMED mission shows a cooling in the upper atmosphere. They attribute this to reduced solar activity. We do know that the uptick in ocean evaporation builds clouds which provide an increase in albedo plus precipitation. This is the control knob for heat removal.

“No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change”

J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, University of Turku, Finland, July 2, 2019

Key Statement: Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    [[Climate science has made a serious omission by not including the important impact of heat from our planet’s core on surface temperatures.]]

    [[No observations were taken on Greenland, the Arctic, nor Antarctica, yet we know that these regions have very high geothermal heat flow. Very few observations were taken across the inaccessible regions of northern Canada and Siberia. Yet, with the Earth as a globe, the thinnest layer of the crust is across the high northern latitudes, with the North Pole being the thinnest point.]]

    Duh, how many times do I have to tell people that Earth’s atmosphere conducts and convects all surface heat harmlessly to space. Look at an A-bomb mushroom cloud and you can see it working, serving as living disproof of the sick Marxist CO2 greenhouse theory that claims that heat “piles” in the atmosphere and blows back down to the surface without a blower. The atmosphere is always colder than the ground, and all the heat came from cooling the surface, so who cares what happens to it? The Earth’s climate is determined only by solar radiation, and geothermal energy and CO2 do diddly. If you stand near a geothermal vent like the bison in Yellowstone Park you might have a warmer winter, but that’s microweather not global climate.

    The CO2-driven AGW hoax must go, it really must go. Why don’t you do your part by refusing to bow to it and looking for other explanations for weather and climate?

    http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Tom O

      |

      T L, you end your comment with this – “The CO2-driven AGW hoax must go, it really must go. Why don’t you do your part by refusing to bow to it and looking for other explanations for weather and climate?”

      The problem isn’t bowing down, nor is the solution looking for other explanations. The people that come to this site already know the truth, and the problem is not being able to have a voice in the argument. We can comment here all we like, as well as other climate reality sites, but we can’t comment where it matters – in the open media that the alarmist faithful read.

      As long as there is no policy enforced that says both sides of an argument must be heard, we can stand as tall as we like and pat each other on the back for being “in the know of climate truth,” but that doesn’t get us anywhere. All we can do, really, is to persevere and hope that the climate, itself, wakes the faithful out of their reverie.

      If we are “lucky,” we will end up living a 14th century style life in a warm world. If we are not, we will end up living a caveman’s life in the next ice age since the steps being taken will not allow us to have the benefits of our current civilization when the truth finally comes blowing from the poles across the once temperate zones and into the tropics.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Alan

        |

        Tom, I agree with your comment. The alarmists say the science is settled. What they mean is the political agenda is settled and that is what the IPCC was set up to do; it controls universities, schools, media and politicians. Our ancient civilisations had more common sense than we do. They knew they could not control the weather and placating the Gods was harmless, unlike today where the climate action policies are damaging our energy supplies and economies. Can we wait for a cooling period? 7.8 million people are not going to survive a return to 14th century living standards.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Barry

      |

      Thank you TL the stupidity of this whole thing is just unbelievable. To think that it was simply put out by the political organization (IPCC) . as science it has absolutely no bases and never did why people keep trying to refute a political statement with actual science is very hard to understand. I am simply a lay person with no education but I decided one day to try and understand the science behind this hoax,I always knew it was a political stunt not science but thought they must have based it on some kind of knowledge that a non academic like myself wouldn’t be able to grasp. Took me about two days of internet work on your website and others to realize how far off base this whole thing is. It is a total fantasy to say the least no need to make sense of the science there isn’t any

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Barry

      |

      PS. Did manage to pick up that geo thermal is less than one watt per sq. meter. Won’t be cooking our hot dogs on that anytime soon.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Richard,

    Glad to see you are back. Have you been reading Rosie Langridge’s series (https://principia-scientific.com/towards-a-rational-climate-change-model-part-3/) ? If not, please do. You will need to scroll back to find Parts 1&2. I have learned to not add too many links in my comments.

    And you, if you have not, need to read (https://principia-scientific.com/arctic-research-crews-supply-ship-hindered-by-dense-ice/) and join into this ongoing great research project. For I plan to move it to geothermal as motivated by Rosie and Zoe. Who combined their reasoning to focus my attention away from active and localized volcanic activity to the continuous thermal conductivity which brings the energy being produced by nuclear fission to the bottoms of the deep oceans. Which bottoms are obviously much closer, than the earth’s surface, to where this nuclear fission is occurring.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Richard,

      Have looked at Dr. Sam Carana recent post, And I looked at RAWS air temperature data for three most nothern sites of Alaska.for 2020 and 2015 for late Feb and couple of days of March. Air temperature for 2020 much lower than 2015 while the ice thickness (from Carana’s post) is much thicker in 2015. I know that air temperature can rapidly fluctuate over a wide range of temperatures as can be seen from the temperature data. But ice thickness cannot. So the question is how can the ice thickness be thinner when the air temperature seems to be consistently lower.

      Now I have experience of ice fishing in eastern South Dakota and northern Minnesota. So I know by the end of the winter season ice thickness can be only a little less than a meter. Which is a only a little less than that of a portion of the Arctic in 2020. Hope I have this right because I really have trouble remembering details as I switch from one screen to another to another.

      I have a difficult time accepting much which is written about the Arctic Ocean during the winter season because this is the first time it actually has been directly observed. And a problem is that only the deep portion of the eastern portion is being observed. It seems quite easy to assume the major ice covered western portion is somewhat isolated from the eastern portion by the ridge which separates the deep water of both portions. And it seems we do not know how deep the western portion might be. Because it seems we only learned with some certainty how deep the eastern portion actually is. But upon more pondering I must admit I do not know what has been measured before during the ice’s minimum extent.

      Do you know what has been actually been measured (observed)?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com

    I was banned in 2010 from Tony BlogBully Watts little WUWT playpen for questioning the absurd back radiation warming hypothesis and the trivial, static geothermal dogma. Let it be noted, this skeptic has been on the wrong side of scientific debate and empirical Truth for over a decade.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Main takeaway:
      Assuming the same temperature at same depth, the SMALLER the internal conductive heat flux, the LARGER the external radiating potential.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via