No, it showed they had discovered some volcanoes - localised heat sources that will affect local areas but are not sufficient to heat the entire ocean floor.
You wouldn't be able to see because of convection the hot molecules are well mixed at the surface. Did you even take thermo??? I'm not arguing for or against the theory. You know where I stand in what has caused the ever slight uptick in temperatures. I do however love pointing out how sophistic your understanding of physics is.
I never said that volcanoes where the source of all the ocean heating. My initial arguement is that the heating of the Earth's core is the cause of the ocean floor heating. The increase in volcanic activity is just a side affect of a hotter core temperature.
changes in the flow of radio active material and other fuel. The changes in convection help explain the changes in the magnetic field also. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3693932/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earths-magnetic-field-weakening/
And do you have ONE scientist with a degree in a related field that will aver that the POSSIBLE changing of the magnetosphere of Earth is linked to ocean warming?
http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/physics/geophysics/j-m-herndon See link above. Herndon is finding that the center of the earth may actually have a natural fission plant at the center that would create heat, magnetic fields and more. This plant would be in constant flux, and explain why some planets expel more heat than they take in. This would negate any heat measurements taken of the core because they were taken, not directly, but indirectly by the assumption that core was made of iron. Now, in the formation of planets it makes more sense that the heavier/denser atoms would be drawn into the center of the planet and not lighter elements. That being said, it is more likely that uranium is at the center of the earth I am not saying that global warming is directly linked to the flux of the magnetosphere. What I am saying is that the changes in the core of the earth are causing the global warming, increased volcanic activity, increased seismic activity, and shifting/weakening magnetosphere. Since all these effects have been increasing at the same time, and increased C02 cannot account for all these occurrences, it only makes since that something more linked with volcanic activity, seismic activity and the weakening magnetosphere like core fluxes would be the source cause.
I suspect this may be because when he has a cold bottom he still has warm farts, so he was extrapolating this to the global environment.
Yeeerrrrrsssss We have known about the core for quite some time now - what I want o know and what you cannot show is how that is suddenly causing an increase in heat - an increase that is not showing up anywhere.
So why say burn houses? More hype from the GW community.. Once again they show they can not be believed and have no credibility
I know your double standard. If it is GW propagandists it is a mistake. If it is those who do not blame man it is a lie.
We have had global temperatures increase at the surface of the entire planet. Does it not stand to reason the temperature at the core would cause an increase of temperature at the surface? The sun's energy has to travel from through the green house gasses and back out, but the earth's own energy only has to travel out from the center of the Earth. If you increase green houses gasses then the green house gasses will absorb more energy on entering our atmosphere and expel it easier. they will also absorb trap the same amount of energy trying to leave. They ballance eachother out and no major increase in temperature will occur. If you increase temperatures from the earths core, it will have much more effect on the global temperatures because it is trapped under the greenhouse gasses directly from teh source. Summary: The suns energy is blocked by greenhouse gasses in and then back out. The earths energy is blocked only on the way out so that it's heat effect is much greater.
Not at all. Only an increase of temperature at the core would cause an increase of temperature at the surface. The heat of the core is caused by radioactive decay, which proceeds at a regular (and well-known) pace, and because it's decaying, that effect actually declines (very slightly) as the earth ages. Further, the rate of heat transferred from this decay is about 0.1 Watts per square meter, a number which has been confirmed by monitoring neutrinos from decaying uranium and thorium in the Earth. That's a nearly constant number, driven as it is by mostly thorium decay. Yet the heat content of the oceans has been rising by about 0.6 Watts per square meter since about 1970, many times greater than the entire nuclear decay heat flux. Not much. The reason they're greenhouse gases is that they're transparent to visible light, where the Sun emits most of its energy, but absorb in the infrared, where the Earth emits most of its energy. There's a small amount of solar energy in the IR spectrum which gets absorbed on the way down by greenhouse gases, but most of the Sun's energy zips right through in the visible range. No, because the inbound and outbound radiation occurs at different wavelengths, and CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb differently at different wavelengths. But it will have a different kind of effect. The observed temperature increase is fastest in the Arctic, fastest at night, and fastest in winter. Greenhouse explains all of this, while geologic heating explains none of it. Misstatement: the Sun's energy is NOT blocked on the way in, but IS blocked on the way out, because things at different temperatures radiate at different wavelengths, and because greenhouse gases (by definition) don't block the inbound visible light, but DO block the outbound infrared.
Actually it is not really ‘known’. All measurements are theoretical at best. They are based on the idea that the earth’s core is made of iron and is consistent. There is actually no evidence or actual measurements that prove that the temperature at the core is not increasing or is increasing. Without proof of evidence of this, global warming caused by CO2 is suspect. http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...s-which-might-help-drive-earths-internal-heat They are not even sure that radio-active decay is the major part if the cause of the heating of the core or just a piece of it. I think that it is more than likely that more is driving the heating process and have given you a scientist that theorizes that a nuclear reaction is the real cause. It is also impossible to take any direct measurements from the source since it is 6,000km deep and we probably only have reached ~12km deep. We do know that the surface is heating, volcanic activity is increasing, seismic activity is increasing, and the magnetosphere is weakening and that core temperatures increasing can cause that, while increasing of CO2 can only affect the heating of the earth. Yes, but it still does affect the incoming IR waves. With the CO2 increases being so minor and water already absorbing most of the IR waves coming back up, why would you have such faith in CO2 causing such a great disturbance? Yes, but some of the light is reflected. Much of it is converted to heat but CO2 has little to no effect on that. All CO2 does is slow the transfer of heat from the surface to the outer atmosphere, but not by much in comparison to water vapor. This process is actually important because it is what allows the earth not to heat to fast and not cool to fast. The moon itself is a great example of temperature extremes without greenhouse gases to help distribute the heat energy more evenly and over time. If excessive greenhouse gases were the cause of the global warming, you would see the majority of that in colder and cooler parts of the planet and the nights would not be as cold. An increase of core temperatures would also show the same effects on our climate, but to a greater degree because it’s source of heat is below the blanket and not above like the sun is. This evening of temperatures would have a bad effect if it went too far but for the most part it is a good thing as it will allow more areas that have extreme temperatures to support more life by evening them out. Geologic heating would be more apparent where the sun is not, like night and winter and north and south poles, and geologic heating’s effect is strengthened by greenhouses gasses since more of its energy can be absorbed by greenhouses gases than the suns. Some of the energy income is absorbed in the atmosphere and then dissipated into space and some is reflected. Only the transfer of energy, absorbed by the Earth’s surface, is slowed on the way out. This does not increase the net energy but actually allows the Earth to retain it for longer periods of time before it is expelled, thus evening the temperatures.
Utter nonsense. The rate of radioactive decay of thorium and uranium has been well known for over a century through actual measurement. But if you want, you can pretend the earth is flat, too. Maybe that's just "theoretical". More nonsense. The most important law in all of science is conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. That means the Earth's internal heat can't just be created by waving a magic wand. You need an energy source that can last for billions of years. If you've got something other than radioactive decay that can do that, I'm all ears. Hello? Is anyone home? That's what I've been saying. Radioactive decay is a nuclear reaction. Apparently you don't read your own links, either. In fact it is possible to take direct measurements using neutrinos, which easily traverse 6000 km of rock. And neutrino measurements confirm that radioactive decay -- a nuclear reaction -- is responsible for the Earth's internal heat. True. False. False. True. But core temperatures aren't increasing. False. It also cools the stratosphere (which has been observed), and causes ocean acidification (which has also been observed). CO2 has increased by 40% since the start of the industrial revolution; that's hardly "minor". It's not faith, it's measurement. That 40% increase in CO2 will cause an additional 1.7 Watts per square meter of climate forcing. That's seventeen times more than the total amount of heat the surface gets from core heat. Water vapor cannot force climate change because it moves in and out of the air too quickly. If you could wave your magic wand and make the whole troposphere 100% relative humidity, what would happen? You'd get two weeks of rain, and then the air would be right back to where it is now. But CO2 stays in the air for centuries. That means your grandchildren's grandchildren will be cursing you in your grave for not cleaning up the mess you're making right now. And that is exactly what we are seeing! The Arctic is warming faster than the tropics, and nights are warming faster than days. Sounds a lot like greenhouse to me. Not at all. The core heats everywhere the same. There is no possible way core heating could cause nights to warm faster than days. The core doesn't know which way the Sun is. So if you were to go down in a mineshaft, or in Carlsbad Caverns, you could tell if it was daytime on the surface by measuring the heating of the rocks from below? Utter nonsense.
Ummmm - yeah! Real reliable website that one - a website that is backing "magnetic reversal" as a reason for global warming. Just goes to show that there is not end of nuts on the internet LEt us look at the author http://iceagenow.info/about-the-author/ He is by trade an architect So, if you had a broken leg would you take advice from a bricklayer to go and see someone who is not even employed in health care??
Sobs quietly in the corner wondering where to start Okaaay - a) Earth is not flat will give you another basic science lesson tomorrow
no climate scientist was advocating this. your lot however seem to think death threats to climate scinetists is a reasonable tactic. can you explain why that is? why death threats? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-threat-campaign/story-e6frg6nf-1226079058193 http://thecostaricanews.com/the-danger-of-climate-change-denial/11430 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php
wha double standard? a lie is a lie and a mistake is a mistake. the two are clearly diffrenet. one is a deliberate attempt to deceive (as per the denialist arguments designed to convince simple minded fools that scientists who publish factual data are ignorant, malicious and politically motivated) and the other is erroneous - possibly through an oversight, not checking data, not proof reading etc.
How is it possible that they "Know" that the core temperature has not been increasing in the past when they only recently learned how to measure neutrinos.
