4 ms·
> You can measure and verify that the Sun can't be keeping the Earth this warm, if it was just down to the Sun this place would be uninhabitable. This is somew
by yongjik 7y ago
> You can measure and verify that the Sun can't be keeping the Earth this warm, if it was just down to the Sun this place would be uninhabitable.
This is somewhat misleading because the Sun is pretty much the sole energy source for keeping the surface of the Earth warm:
> Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation. [1]
The problem posed by Kelvin was the the interior of the Earth was too warm, which may affect long-term habitability because plate tectonics plays a role in regulating the atmosphere's CO2 levels (or so I've heard), but of course nobody at Kelvin's time knew that. Kelvin wasn't asking "Why isn't the Earth a dead planet?"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- corndoge 7y agoGP stated because it's warm underground
- eythian 7y agoThey also stated > if it was just down to the Sun this place would be uninhabitable which implies surface.
- tialaramex 7y agoYup. Bang to rights gov, I was under the impression that insolation isn't enough to do 275K on the surface (ie temperature above freezing) and thus you couldn't really live here, but actually I was wrong.
- mr_toad 7y agoI think Kelvin meant that if the Sun was keeping the Earth that warm underground then the surface would be frying.