Sea levels may drop with global warming - press clips

[StreetScooby 5]

Your argument holds water In my pondering, I'm still stuck.

Nothing I've heard in this thread discounts underwater volcanic activity. A leaking thermos bottle (the earth) still sounds viable.

We are all engines of karma

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A leaking thermos bottle (the earth) still sounds viable.

Except anything leaking is still considered part of the planet.

I don't think you are making any more serious mistake other than confusing the earth with the "land". You have to look at the planet as including the atmosphere. Then the physical isolation of the planet shows that radiation is the only real way for heat transfer from/to the planet. (If you want to consider mass transfer mechanisms (minute gasseous exchange with the near void, meteors, planetary ejections), it would be such an amazingly tiny proportion to be insignificant and conduction impossible unless there is some discovery someday of some weird-ass subspace kind of shunting mechanism to 'elsewhere'.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[StreetScooby 5]

I think we're all in agreement regarding net energy. The question in my mind is the distribution of the energy amongst the various parts of the planet. It's the oceans that are getting warm. Why? That's the part that's not clear to me. I have a very hard time seeing gases warming up a large body of water. If the interior of the earth is leaking into the water (i.e., magma), that tends to make more sense to me. BTW - I have a masters in ChE.

We are all engines of karma

[JackC 0]

Quote

I have a very hard time seeing gases warming up a large body of water.

As I understand it, it's not really the atmospheric gasses that are heating the oceans. It's the EM radiation from the sun being absorbed by the soil, rocks, plants, water, etc. Then air sweeps over the surface and picks up the heat through conduction and convection, which heats the atmosphere. Excess CO2 just helps prevent the heat escaping back into space.

[billvon 3,131]

>It's the oceans that are getting warm. Why?

Because they are losing less heat to space through radiation. CO2 blocks reradiation of IR; it gets reflected back (or absorbed by the atmosphere.)

>That's the part that's not clear to me. I have a very hard time seeing
>gases warming up a large body of water.

It's not so much gases warming the water as the water itself not cooling as fast as it used to via radiation.

>If the interior of the earth is leaking into the water (i.e., magma)
>that tends to make more sense to me.

Well, except the center of the earth and the surface reached equilibrium about 4 billion years ago, and the center of the earth has been cooling ever since. Sure, a volcano could cause significant spot heating of the surface, but the thermal gradient's not going to change significantly worldwide.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Well, except the center of the earth and the surface reached equilibrium about 4 billion years ago, and the center of the earth has been cooling ever since. Sure, a volcano could cause significant spot heating of the surface, but the thermal gradient's not going to change significantly worldwide.

Not really. The core and surface are not in equilibrium. Far from it speaking thermally and chemically. That's why we have such a dynamic planet.

And actually there is quite a bit of difference in heat flux through the crust. I've got an article somewhere in my file cabinet from Geophysics I'll dig out to get the numbers. Oceanic crust has a much lower heat flux than continental crust - mostly due to the concentration of radioactive nuclides in the continental crust though.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[billvon 3,131]

>Not really. The core and surface are not in equilibrium. Far from it
>speaking thermally and chemically. That's why we have such a
>dynamic planet.

Don't confuse static and dynamic equilibrium. A rock sitting underwater is in static thermal equilibrium; it is the same temperature as its surroundings. A rock sitting in the sun is in dynamic equilibrium; it absorbs heat from the sun, gets hot, conducts some of that heat away through the air and ground, and radiates some into space. But as long as all the conditions remain constant it stays at about the same temperature, so the system is said to be in equilibrium - even though heat is flowing in many directions. Take away the sun, or change the color of the rock, and the temperature will likely change as the system finds a new equilibrium

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

BTW - I have a masters in ChE.

that explains the micro perspective discussion from your posts relative the macro level responses from BV and myself

I understand where you are coming from now. But the point is it's still the total net energy conversation that's important here. Edit: unless you believe the center of the planet is a nuclear reactor of some sort, then all bets are off and this could get fun if we are a little nerdy

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Edit: unless you believe the center of the planet is a nuclear reactor of some sort, then all bets are off and this could get fun if we are a little nerdy

technically it is. There is heat being generated by radionuclide decay. We've gone through about half of the 238U we started with. Add to that the heat from decay of short lived nuclides that haven't escaped yet (Ag, I, K, Fe) along with the heat of core formation and a few nuts even say some heat of accretion is still buried in there too trying to get out. I still disagree about the equilibrium, dynamic or static but we'd need a few beers and a lot of time to talk it over

Edit: I notice youand bill are both engineers. I think it's more of an engineer vs. natural scientist way of looking at it rather than a micro vs. macro way of looking at it.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[EricTheRed 0]

relevant trivia piece here...http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

illegible usually