# Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget

Written by Joseph E Postma

Instead of creating a flat-Earth “global energy budget” such as those which the field of climate science is entirely based upon, as in the figure below, I have created (and updated) a new global energy budget which is instead called “Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget”.

This distinction in labels makes all the difference in the world. A question to the reader: Can the mathematics and physics developed for flat Earth theory be empirically or theoretically valid?

These diagrams demonstrate the universal starting point by which climate science then derives its “greenhouse effect”. Look past the math and see what the math is being developed for: What is a flat line representing the entire Earth called?

In climate science, their mathematics of flat Earth theory works out to that sunlight cannot heat anything on the Earth to temperatures above -18 degrees Celsius. If atmospheric absorption and scattering of incoming sunlight is taken into account on their flat Earth theory, then this maximum-heating-temperature of sunlight reduces to -40 degrees Celsius (bottom right diagram of above figure).

To make up for the Sun not being able to create the weather or sustain the climate with such an incredibly low heating potential of its light spread over the entire flat Earth, then climate science invents ad-hoc mathematics where this feeble solar heating is reversed and recycled two-times-over to make up the difference, and they call this ad-hoc scheme “the greenhouse effect” even though it isn’t how an actual real greenhouse functions or why real greenhouses get so warm inside.

The definition of ad-hoc is “created for the purpose.” So to be clear, the climate science heat-recycling greenhouse effect is created for the purpose of flat Earth theory, where the mathematics of flat Earth theory dictated that the Sun must not heat the Earth to temperatures above -40 degrees Celsius.

Thus, their flat-Earth heat-recycling “greenhouse effect” was created for the purpose of “explaining” higher temperatures and meteorological and climatological phenomena which occur above -40 degrees Celsius. This is flat Earth theory being mathematically developed into modern science.

A well-known example of ad-hoc mathematics being inserted into science was with Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity. When Einstein first solved his equations for relativity he realized that they indicated that the universe should either be expanding or contracting.

And thus to satisfy consensus thinking at the time period, and his own agreement with the consensus, he inserted ad-hoc terms into his equations for the purpose of making his theory satisfy a universe that the consensus believed should be static and unchanging in size. Many years later Einstein admitted that this ad-hoc mathematical trick was the greatest blunder of his life, and his equations had these extra terms removed.

Do you wonder if today’s scientists will one day realize the blunder of the ad-hoc mathematics they created which they call a “greenhouse effect”, in order to satisfy their consensus belief that sunshine cannot heat the planet to above -40 degrees Celsius, via their consensus belief that the Earth can be mathematically modeled as flat?

These are clearly obvious blunders to any thinking person…but we must wait for the scientific consensus to catch up to us and to adopt spherical-Earth theory as we intellectuals have.

In the thermodynamics textbook by D.V. Schroeder (2000), on page 17 we read:

“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperatureenergy, and heat.  Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

It could be said that the entire enterprise of thermodynamic theory is about defining these three concepts and distinguishing them from one another. The distinctions are in fact the most important possible thing in physics and in science, not to mention in all engineering, technology, electricity production, industry, computers…and literally everything we now take for-granted in our modern world.

Indeed even in the pre-technological world, although we might not have known it, our campfires and our fire-making ability of rubbing sticks together is all about how these three concepts interrelate to each other.

For example: temperature is not a measure of an object’s total internal thermal energy with respect to another object; the energy of a body cannot be changed without supplying the body with heat (or work), but energy is not always heat; heat is a transient form of energy found only at a boundary between objects, and only exists moving from hot to cold.

This is just the barest of basics, but even these simple preliminary distinctions hint at profound differences in the physics and mathematics which explain them. It took scientists upwards of two-hundred years(!) to figure it all out, and once they did it created the industrial and technological revolution which followed in the 20th Century.

We really needed to understand the subtleties involved with these concepts before we could start engineering things to produce useful modern technology. It’s kinda a big deal!

Before proceeding with showing you the new diagram, we should review some definitions and descriptions of the concept of heat which I’ve gathered from several textbook sources:

Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects.  We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth.  The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.”

– Thermal Physics, Schroeder (2000)

“If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy are therefore said to be irreversible. […]

“Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one.  We saw […] that this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, and heat flow is always irreversible. […]

“Most of the process we observe in life involve large entropy increases are therefore highly irreversible: sunlight warming the Earth […].”

– Thermal Physics, Schroeder (2000)

“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon.

If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established.

At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.”

– Thermodynamics, Wylen (1960)

“The temperature of a body alone is what determines whether heat will be transferred from it to another body with which it is in contact or vice versa.  A large block of ice at 00C has far more internal energy than a cup of hot water; yet when the water is poured on the ice some of the ice melts and the water becomes cooler, which signifies that energy has passed from the water to the ice.

“When the temperature of a body increases, it is customary to say that heat has been added to it; when the temperature decreases, it is customary to say that heat has been removed from it.  When no work is done, ΔU = Q, which says that the internal energy change of the body is equal to the heat transferred to it from the surroundings.  One definition of heat is:

Heat is energy transferred across the boundary of a system as a result of a temperature difference only.

– Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Carter (2001)

“How and why does heat energy flow?  In other words, we need an expression for the dependence of the flow of heat energy on the temperature field.  First we summarize certain qualitative properties of heat flow with which we are all familiar:

1. If the temperature is constant in a region, no heat energy flows.
2. If there are temperature differences, the heat energy flows from the hotter region to the colder region.”

– Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations, Haberman (1998)

If any readers have their own quotations which they’ve found during their own research which delineate similar distinctions as these quotations, please submit them in the comments and I will update the list above. This list can serve as reference source material when the usual need arises to correct climate-alarmist pseudoscientists and others who believe in the non-existent and impossible flat-Earth climate science greenhouse effect.

Be sure to remember that radiative heat transfer follows these rules along with the other physical modes of heat transfer (conduction, diffusion, convection).

Given the importance in science and thermodynamics of the distinctions between energy, heat, and temperature, then should we not create a budget of Earth’s energy inputs and outputs in terms consistent with thermodynamics?

Or if that sounds too technical, shouldn’t we at least create a model of the Earth which is not flat, and which corresponds with empirical physical reality? And most importantly, shouldn’t the thermodynamic energy budget model abide by the rules of heat transfer such that heat only flows in one direction and where heat is not reversible or recycled as is done in the scientific consensus flat-Earth climate science version?

Thus I present to you Earth’s Thermodynamic Energy Budget:

The current consensus opinion in science is that flat Earth theory can be used to model the Earth and its energy inputs and outputs, where sunlight falls in a vastly-diluted manner over the entire flat Earth surface at once as an input. They believe that such flat Earth theory is a valid “average” of the Earth.

Of course, the true average manner in which sunlight enters and interacts with the Earth is as sunlight falling onto only a hemisphere of the globe at any and at all times. That is, the physics and mathematics by which sunlight interacts with and enters the Earth’s system is as sunlight falling onto a hemisphere. Most of us intellectuals know this, but scientists are still catching up to the fact that this has important mathematical and physical consequences.

The potential of solar heating just before sunlight falls onto the Earth, the power of sunlight at Earth’s distance from the Sun, is +1210C! That is very powerful. When this sunlight falls onto the day-side hemisphere, and after accounting for reflective losses, sunlight still has a potential of +880C heating to plus or minus 26 degrees latitude away from the point directly underneath the Sun and in longitudinal rotation towards and away from that point.

Over the entire hemisphere sunlight has a potential heating of +300C. This heat from sunlight provides all of the thermodynamic power required to directly create the physical meteorological responses we call weather, and sustains the climate over the long term.

Consider a towering cumulonimbus cloud which is thousands upon thousands of tons of water vapor raised to thirty-thousand feet in altitude above the surface – the power of the Sun did that! It requires high-temperature high-intensity power to do that which can only come from the Sun in the first place. The scientific consensus’ flat Earth theory sunlight of only -400C could never perform this feat…let alone even melting ice into water, or doing much else.

Don’t you think that it is important to understand this about the Sun and sunlight falling on the Earth? Most scientists do not think so, given over as they are to the consensus belief that the Earth can be modeled as flat and thereby that sunlight is no more powerful at heating the Earth than -400C. The Sun creates these meteorological and climatological effects…not the ad-hoc and false “greenhouse effect” which they’ve created for the purpose of attempting to make flat Earth theory appear more valid.

In the top-right of the Thermodynamic Energy Budget diagram we see the derivation and equation of the lapse rate found in the troposphere, i.e. in the part of the atmosphere where climatological and meteorological effects reside and which contains the vast majority of the mass of the atmosphere.

This equation, and its empirically-measured value which matches the equation when factored for the presence of water vapor, all by itself demonstrates that the ad-hoc “greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist given that if it did exist then the value of that lapse rate would have to be enhanced.

In the figure below we see a comparison between the Thermodynamic Energy Budget of the Earth and the scientific consensus non-thermodynamic flat Earth theory energy budget of the Earth.

There are really important differences between these energy budgets, because one of them represents the Earth and sunlight as they actually empirically physically interact in accordance with thermodynamic theory, and the other one presents an arbitrary ad-hoc mathematical scheme to correct for the errors of flat Earth theory while being based in flat Earth theory.

Only the world’s greatest intellectuals are capable of comprehending this comparison and understanding its value and implications. Are you one of the world’s leading intellectuals? You are if you can confidently state that you think that there is an important scientific and mathematical difference between flat Earth theory and round-Earth theory; this would place you well beyond the intellectualism of the scientific consensus and most of academia.

It is going to require immense effort on the part of intellectuals to correct the scientific consensus’ acceptance of flat Earth theory in climate science. We have already witnessed previously that the scientific peer-review process in physics and in meteorology journals will reject scientific papers which attempt to explain, as in this blog post, that the shape of the Earth together with the power of sunlight is an important consideration when mathematically modelling the Earth and understanding the creation and the sustaining of its climate.

Only the power of true and the highest standards of intellectualism can detect that there is a problem with climate political science alarm’s flat Earth theory. I know that most of you reading are of such a high caliber of mind; if science disallows us from submitting scientific papers which explain the errors of flat Earth theory, and if media companies and government conspire to prevent the intellectual free-speech of truth on this matter, then, what are we to do?

We will not be ruled over and lorded over and lectured about our intelligence and lifestyle by those who believe in flat Earth theory.

### Please post any questions for Joe Postma at his blog at climateofsophistry.com

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.

• ### Andy Rowlands

|

Nice article Joe, from my admittedly limted understanding of thermodynamics, it seems a logical argument to me.

• ### T L Winslow

|

If you want to put the IPCC CO2 hoaxers and their corrupt computer climate models out of business, you need to program your own that’s free of CO2 back radiation moose hockey and release the code under an Open Source license.

For speed, you should stick to FORTRAN or C, and create visual displays with Python.

https://www.quora.com/What-coding-languages-do-you-use-for-writing-climate-models

I hope you can handle this, because if you can’t I’m going to have to take time out from my busy schedule to do it myself, but can only spare so much time.

I would start with a basic Sun-Earth model that illuminates the current hemisphere then rotates the axis x degrees at a time, showing surface temperatures at every latitude and longitude or even a finer resolution. I wouldn’t waste time on atmospheric temperatures, and would treat the Earth as cloud-free until I proved that the Sun alone can sustain livable surface temperatures, then add theoretical clouds, which can only cool them anyway.

A visual display allowing the user to watch the Earth rotate and stop it at any point to sample the surface temperature grid would be a nice breakthrough to break the IPCC’s (and AMS’s) back. A running statistical database can compute global surface min and max temperatures, and a mean. Version 1.0 can be a theoretical Earth with theoretical initial conditions, perhaps starting on one of our birthdays. Initializing it with real data can wait until we disprove the IPCC computer climate models with a theoretical Earth model.

We can do this without their billion-dollar budgets. Maybe somebody up there will like us and revamp the govt. orgs. to do it our way. You should demand to be made principal investigator at a cushy salary with benefits. I can’t take the time out but would accept an online consulting contract where they email me questions and I supply an answer in a certain time for so many bucks 🙂

Maybe P-S can sponsor the project and recruit a team to split the work, after our 1-man project reaches a concept validation milestone.

• ### Robert Beatty

|

Maybe it is more important to establish what controls the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and why it is where it is?
If humans have nothing to do with influencing that level, the rest of the study become of academic interest only.

• ### Al Shelton

|

I agree.
But it is important to debunk AGW and the GHG Theory. Science cannot allow frauds to exist along with their suppression tactics.
The politicos do not care about science.
To them, it is all about global socialism and a NWO.

• ### Robert Beatty

|

Hi Al,
Unless you cut the head off the argument, it will survive forever.

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

TBH, I don’t think Joe’s model is correct either. I’m working up my own version and not sure what to do with the draft. Send it to John OSullivan?

• ### Andy Rowlands

|

May we ask what you think is wrong with Joe’s paper?

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

Quite a lot, Andy. I’m working on it right now. Just breaking off for breakfast. What I’ve done is coming out at about 1400 words and so it’s too long to post here.
Essentially I’ve started again from scratch – so you can compare my version to Joe’s and assess them one against the other. I think I had better submit mine to John OSullivan first.

• ### Andy Rowlands

|

Quite a lot….you are aware Joe has a MSc in Astrophysics? John O’Sullivan may well be interested in seeing your article.

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

Haha, Andy, yes I am! That’s why I’m feeling somewhat nervous. My credentials are a very strong 1970s English school education – part of a class that obtained across-the-board As and 1s in double-subject maths, physics and chemistry A and S levels which should be more than enough basic science. Followed by a degree in geography.
Joe himself kindly credits his readers here with education and intelligence, and so I’m continuing with my effort.
I invite you to have a go yourself – it’s somewhat fun!

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

PS Andy – I have finished it and am just polishing up the wording. I don’t want to submit any howlers 😉

• ### Andy Rowlands

|

Fair enough, if John accepts your article it will be interesting to see what others think of it. I don’t delve that deeply into the physics myself, I leave that to those like Joe who are much more qualified than me. I do submit articles to PSI, usually debunking something or other, and I find that rather fun as well 🙂

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

Well, exactly, Andy – it’s a multi-pronged approach.
In terms of the physics, I would like to encourage anyone to examine what Joe is saying about energy and temperature. The Khan Academy is a good teaching source. It isn’t that difficult.
Anyway, it would be nice if John does put my model on here for people to examine. It’s by comparing one reasonable effort with another reasonable effort that progress is made.

• ### Al Shelton

|

Great article Joseph.
Thanks.

• ### Alan

|

I agree with the ideas presented but I dislike the term “Earth’s thermodynamic energy budget”. It is too connected with all the bad science of the K&T Energy budget. Budget seems to be entirely the wrong description. It suggests something that we can control and it not a term used in thermodynamics. It also implies a steady state condition. Why not replace budget with system?

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

I completely agree with Alan. A ‘budget’ suggests that humans set the terms and nature had better comply. I’ve already included that in my report which is getting longer and longer! This is about science and terms matter.

• ### John Spooner

|

You belabor the semantics of words written in antiquity and confuse real-time system dynamics with the time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics. It’s true that a cold object cannot add more energy on balance to a warmer object, but not true to suggest energy is not moving in all directions all the time. The steady-state of any system is a balance of dynamic energy potentials. To not think so is insanity. Thermodynamics is the time-averaged accountancy not the dynamic (real-time) mechanisms.
Radiative heat transfer between surfaces depends on the orientation of the
surfaces relative to each other as well as their radiative properties and
temperatures. It is constant and in all directions from all objects > 0K. To suggest otherwise is to imply energy from cooler objects is annihilated in certain directions, when the net heat flow is merely the Occam’s razor of (a -b). This is how the equations for radiative heat transfer are derived, and why they work. No need to invoke voodoo.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi John,
Have your read my article in PSI “Radiate or Absorb”? It offers a theory on how radiated is both absorbed and radiated by an object. Heat is not a transfer of energy as Geran believes, but the kinetic energy contained in an object as energy interacts with matter. There is energy in space between the sun and the Earth but there is no heat because there is no matter.
Herb

• ### geran

|

Wrong again, Herb. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from hot to cold. You are confusing “heat” with “temperature”.

I would say you can’t learn, but you did learn to spell “matter”, after my instruction. So you can learn, but it’s a slow process….

• ### Robert Kernodle

|

John Spooner wrote:

[“You belabor the semantics of words written in antiquity and confuse real-time system dynamics with the time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics.”]

Most words were written in antiquity, John. Which words are you referring to here? I can only guess that you mean the words, “heat” and “energy”.

These words, like all words, evolved from their antique meanings to their mature meanings. The fact that words originate in antiquity, therefore, does NOT negate how they evolved in modern times to mean what they mean today. Your implication, then, that word-origin date debases current-usage validity is unfounded.

The word, “heat”, so I understand, evolved from an antique meaning of a sort of fluid stuff that flowed from place to place. Postma certainly does NOT endorse this antique meaning. So, what are you talking about? “Heat” has a clear meaning in the evolved science of thermodynamics. This is the meaning that Postma encourages us to use. Correct word usage is the goal of clear communication. Are you complaining about clear communication, John?

There is nothing “belabored” in the act of encouraging correct use of words with clearly defined meanings, to foster clear communication. Science is the one place where this should have the highest priority.

Your claim about confusing real-time system dynamics with time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics introduces a concept that I have never heard of. Where, in thermodynamics, is the phrase, “time-averaged accountancy” ever used? I’m guessing nowhere. Ever. That’s a phrase that you invented for a method that does not even exist, so that you could compare what thermodynamics actually is with some make-believe thing that you want it to be, providing you with a fake basis where you could make your claim that somebody is confused, because they do not share your fictional, non-existent “time-averaged accountancy” method.

There’s no such thing, John. Simple as that. You are just making up the phrase to have words to play with to fool yourself and others into believing that you know what you are talking about, which you have NOT convinced me that you do.

• ### John Spooner

|

Robert – I perfectly understand the words and principles, but not in the way they are often mis-represented here by certain folks. Particularly in regard to the voodoo science of annihilative pyschic radiation flows out to any distance. The reality of the 2nd Law does not require such nonsense. They would break the first law to satisfy the 2nd, for no reason, because they do not understand that thermodynamics is not kinetics; it is simply “thermo-statics” which necessitates time by the very nature of net flows and balances to achieve stabler states. Hence semantics. If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between kinetics and thermodynamics then that’s not my problem. I’m not here to troll, just point out the risks of reading up on bits of physics out of context of a formally grounded education. I think we all agree CO2 is not a driver for global warming – but if folks here peddle pseudo-science they will never be taken seriously and they only discredit and tarnish those who can actually expose the AGW scam for what it is.

• ### James McGinn

|

JS:
You belabor the semantics of words written in antiquity and confuse real-time system dynamics with the time-averaged accountancy of thermodynamics.

JMcG:
Very well stated. Yes, you are right.

It’s true that a cold object cannot add more energy on balance to a warmer object, but not true to suggest energy is not moving in all directions all the time. The steady-state of any system is a balance of dynamic energy potentials. To not think so is insanity. Thermodynamics is the time-averaged accountancy not the dynamic (real-time) mechanisms.

JMcG:
Perfect!

Radiative heat transfer between surfaces depends on the orientation of the
surfaces relative to each other as well as their radiative properties and
temperatures. It is constant and in all directions from all objects > 0K. To suggest otherwise is to imply energy from cooler objects is annihilated in certain directions, when the net heat flow is merely the Occam’s razor of (a -b). This is how the equations for radiative heat transfer are derived, and why they work. No need to invoke voodoo.

JMcG:
Well stated!

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi James,
Objects do not equalize with each other. They equalize with the electro/magnetic fields that they are in. When one has transferred excess energy to the fields and the other has absorbed energy from the fields they reach equilibrium with the fields and each other.Objects will equalize even if the energy they are radiating is not the same wavelength the other object is absorbing.
Herb

• ### geran

|

Herb, your imagination is above average, but your knowledge of physics is pathetic.

The combination is hilarious.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Comment not for Geran and others who have no ability to think or reason,
The energy of an electromagnetic wave is a function of its wavelength/frequency.
When an electromagnetic wave transfers energy to an object it must lose energy.
If it loses energy its wavelength must get longer/frequency lower.

• ### geran

|

Herb, getting a few things correct doesn’t make up for a whole lot of things incorrect. A car with a steering wheel can’t go anywhere if the engine, three tires, and the axle are all missing.

• ### geran

|

Spooner, you seem to disregard semantics, but you must realize there is a difference between “energy” and “heat”. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object.

If may just be semantics to you, but the implications are dramatic.

• ### Jack

|

WTH is that Spooner person talking about! LOL

• ### Zoe Phin

|

In his paper:
“This heat energy will then conduct its way down into the subsurface until it merges with the geothermal temperature at a depth of somewhere around, say, 5 to 10 meters and temperature of approximately 5C to 10C”

Wow, it’s almost as if the temperature of geothermal matters …

https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

Postma used to be smarter before he got obsessed wity misreprenting thinga as “flat earth”.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Zoe,
You seem to believe that when night comes that the solar energy in that 5 to 10 meters instantly disappears and geothermal energy heats the Earth. Doesn’t happen that way, geothermal doesn’t matter . You haven’t gotten any smarter.

• ### Zoe Phin

|

I never said anything like that. The Sun provides the surface of the day side hemisphere with 2 × 165 W/m^2 = 330 W/m^2.

The day side gets to 20C, and the night side goes to 10C.

The Sun alone can’t power the day side to observable surface temperatures.

You can have solar storage over night, but you still need geothermal to get observable day and night time temperatures.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Zoe,
I will try to teach you thermodynamics but since you could not learn gravity I don’t expect any results.
You have a container of hot water were the molecules have kinetic energy X. You add more water with molecules have X kinetic energy.The total heat (Total kinetic energy) increases and since the volume/area increases it radiates more energy. Because the kinetic energy of the molecules hasn’t changed the rate of radiating energy doesn’t change.
In another container identical to the first you now add the same amount of additional water but these molecules have more kinetic energy (greater than X) than the molecules in the container. The amount of heat in the container increases as does the amount of energy radiated. Because the kinetic energy of the molecules in the container has increased (greater than X) it will radiate energy at a faster rate than before.
The Earth is the container containing geothermal energy. The sun is adding more energy. Before the Earth can lose geothermal energy it must lose the energy being added to it by the sun.

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

Hi Zoe
I’ve just sent off a long text to John O’Sullivan that concurs with what you are saying. Hopefully he will like it and publish it here and you can assess what I say and we can discuss further.
I’ve just seen your comment above. My brain has been working overtime this morning so I’ll look at your blog later today.
Rosie

• ### Zoe Phin

|

Herb,
“Before the Earth can lose geothermal energy it must lose the energy being added to it by the sun.”

The sun provides ~240 W/m^2. The atmosphere gets ~505 W/m^2.

Think before you speak, dummy.

• ### Rosie Langridge

|

Of course it does.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Rosie,
Any volcanic or geothermal heat reaching the Earth’s surface will be transported to the upper atmosphere and radiated into space just as the excess heat from a fire. The heat of the Earth’s surface is in equilibrium with the energy being received from the sun. Why do you think that after 4 billion years of radiating heat the Earth’s crust is paper thin?
Herb

• ### tom0mason

|

The bottom line is that these so called scientist have reductionist and stasis ideas that do not take into account the totality of this planets energy use and its organic methods.
These scientists say that the Earths energy in=energy out, however at any moment, or even on average, this is a LIE! This is a fictional equality.

This planet with it’s organic life sequesters and retains as much energy as it can. Organic life on this planet stores solar radiation away in a complex chemical processes and only releases some of that energy later. Life actively and continually converts solar energy to chemical bonds! These newly formed bonds can be kept for seconds, hour, days, years or even centuries.
Take for instance this little report on a research paper — https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/10/21/northern-peatlands-double-carbon/ they go long on how the carbon was stored but not a mention of all the solar energy that has been sequestered away in this process! Now consider all the peatland worldwide, or the organic sludge that accumulates in the deep oceans, or the solar energy accumulation that all the plants do, thus ensuring the continual build-up of organic matter locked into soil, some of which gets buried for millions of years within geologic layers of the Earth.
Compounding this is vast amount of the solar energy caught-up in the oceans, energy that can and is circulating for a very long time periods (and is used by aquatic life). And currently our understanding of the details of oceanic circulatory process and the energy therein is very poor.

No, on this planet energy in does not equal energy out at any one time or even on average over finite periods. However equality will be met at the final end of this planet — that is to say energy in equals energy out eventually but eventually is (hopefully) a very, very long way off.