Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns

Hi Buzsaw, Hey, very interesting. Thanks.--TheLit

My OP is more about what part, if any, the melting ice-caps play in global warming and how that compares to man-made effects.Is it the natural tendency for the earth to get really hot due to distance from the sun, but we have been nice-n-cool because we've had enormous ice caps (that have been melting since the last ice age--regardless of the cause of the ice age)? If so, then these ice caps are almost gone (compared to how large they used to be, right?) Would ice-cap melting accelerate naturally? (IOW, the more they melt the more they melt?) If it does, and if the sun/melting ice caps are actually driving global warming, then it could account for the accelerating curve in CF's graphs...the timing of the Industrial Revolution being coincidental perhaps.Once again, I reiterate, despite Bill Moyers, I do not advocate polluting the air; nor do I see any need for the world to maintain its industrialized state...I would personally much prefer to return to a subsistent-farming-based mode of living (were such possible)--back to outhouses, too (no 2-5 gallons of sewage everytime someone uses the bathroom!) I am particularly upset by the polluting of the waters!From this reportI live very near the city limits of Pensacola and only a half-hour away from Milton!--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-06-2005 03:43 AM

To all,Has it been established that the earth loses more energy than it gains from the sun and produces internally? Can this be measured? Has it been measured?Thanks,
--TheLit

As noted the earth is warmer inside. Therefore it is losing heat through it's surface. It has to! That is the second law of thermodynamics.Since the specific heat of the atmosphere isn't all that great (warning the rest is guess work not calculated) if we weren't tossing off some of that energy that is coming up form below AND not gaining from the sun we would be getting hotter and hotter over the long term. We know that the earth hasn't been steadily gaining (unless it is for the last few decades -- a separate issue) so it is managing to lose the heat from the interior for a net loss.

Off topic, but two other texts that come to mind, prophesy this latter day phenomenon. Revelation 1:7 and 18:19This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-06-2005 18:26 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Ned,The reason I asked is because I wonder is it possible that the energy from the sun plus the internally generated energy less the energy radiated to space actually result in a small net gain in energy (I am speaking of rates here--IOW, that the earth experiences a small net gain in joules per second), which has been largely countered by the ice-caps via reflection (energy radiated out) as well as the fact that they reduce the overall energy of the earth.I wonder would there be some way to figure whether the earth is experiencing a net increase or a net decrease in energy?Can we measure/calculate/estimate the rate at which energy is recieved from the sun?
Can we measure/calculate/estimate the rate at which energy is radiated from the earth to space?
Can we measure/calculate/estimate the rate at which energy is generated by the earth?(That last one sounds pretty challenging. The first two sound pretty doable.)If all three can be measured or estimated, then we could independantly verify the assumption that because the earth is hotter inside that it is losing heat via the surface.If the earth is experiencing a net energy increase--even at a small rate...uh oh!--TheLit

quote:

---

The reason I asked is because I wonder is it possible that the energy from the sun plus the internally generated energy less the energy radiated to space actually result in a small net gain in energy

---

As I understand it, the only non-stellar body in the solar system to generate its own heat is Jupiter, which is about 30 degrees hotter than it would be due to infalling radiation.Yes there are figures for the earths energy radiation into space, although I can't quote any, only report seeing them.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-08-2005 05:43 AM

Contracycle, Well, actually each of the planets are generating energy of their own because each rotate and revolve, such motions will necessarily generate energy. However, I do fuzzily recall that Jupiter has some stellar-like energy generating mechanism (which is what you mean, I presume).Each of the planets also recieve (and absorb/reflect) solar energy. Overall, each planet will radiate energy (whether (reflected) solar or internally generated).All this I think you knew. However, I am now confused. JonF seems to indicate in Message 75 that we can't determine what temperature earth SHOULD be. Maybe he's right, but I wonder, then, how can determine what temperature JUPITER should be???--TheLit

quote:

---

Well, actually each of the planets are generating energy of their own because each rotate and revolve, such motions will necessarily generate energy.

---

No, heat is generated by gravitational stresses, and these extract energy from the bodies orbital motion.

quote:

---

However, I do fuzzily recall that Jupiter has some stellar-like energy generating mechanism (which is what you mean, I presume).

---

Yes, Jupiter is thought to be massive enough have initiated fusion in its core, and can sometimes be described as a sub-brown dwarf.

quote:

---

All this I think you knew. However, I am now confused. JonF seems to indicate in Re: Losing Heat (Message 75 of Thread A science question) that we can't determine what temperature earth SHOULD be. Maybe he's right, but I wonder, then, how can determine what temperature JUPITER should be???

---

I think JonF is mistaken in this regard - I'm under the impression the earths energy budget has been much studied over the last 50 years.

Definitely not. Jupiter may be the only body generating energy by fusion in its core; but the Earth generates a significant portion of its heat by radioacive decay and some by gravitational segregation and the like.

I would think the rotational motion would generate quite a bit of "heat", too.

Rotational motion in and of itself does not generate heat. If the rotating body is rubbing against something, that will cause frictional heating. If the rotating body is partly liquid and/or gas, the acceleration involved in rotation can cause convection and turbulence which dissipates energy as heat. There may be other possibilities; but a rigid object rotating in a vacuum generates no heat.

As the Earth spins and rotates in the presence of the Sun's magnetic field, wouldn't that generate heat?

Yup, as long as the Earth has a magnetic field and/or a conductive portion, as it does. But that's IMHO not inherent in the rotation, either.

I guess I was thinking of internal friction and also friction between the surface and atmosphere and within the atmoshpere itself.I never thought about the magnetic stuff...cool.AbE: Actually sounds like a potential for electrical energy somehow (a rotating magnet?).AbE: Okay, I think the magnet has to rotates the poles in a generator (not at the poles)...so I don't think that applies here.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-11-2005 23:12 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-11-2005 23:17 AM