3 ms·

No offense but I have a hard time believing this. Isn't pumping heat from the center of the earth to the atmosphere more or less the same as having a larger amo

No offense but I have a hard time believing this. Isn't pumping heat from the center of the earth to the atmosphere more or less the same as having a larger amount of incoming solar energy? And certainly it would be hard to argue that more energy from the sun wouldn't heat the planet. Wouldn't the equilibrium temperature be both a function of energy in and radiation rate (which is also a function of temperature?)

CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
No > Wouldn't the equilibrium temperature be both a function of energy in and radiation rate (which is also a function of temperature?) Exactly, and since we're not changing the energy in (that energy is going to reach us whether we pump it up or not), and thus the equilibrium does not change. Where else can all that generated energy go other than up?
- rwcarlsen 6y ago
  But it would otherwise go "up" at a slower rate - so heat adding more slowly but over longer. Pumping heat up is effectively compressing this time horizon - resulting in a difference in rate of heat added. Now if that geothermal energy was replacing nuclear or fossil fuel use, then it might be a wash. But as soon as that energy replaces hydro, wind, or solar (which don't add new heat to the atmosphere - just use heat already there) - then we would increase the rate of heat energy being added to the atmosphere.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    Surface energy radiates from the Earth rapidly, something like a quartic function of temperature if I'm remembering correctly. We could add a lot of energy to the surface and suffer negligible effects.
  - CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
    I looked it up again, and it seems like we're both a bit correct. My explanation would be correct if the earth is in equilibrium and there is no primordial heat left and all heat comes from radioactive decay, but surprisingly (to me at least) that is not the case. About 1/2 of the heat flow from the core to the surface comes from primordial heat. I'd say solar will also add some heat to the atmosphere because they reflect less sunlight than the surface. Of course, in the big scheme of things this is all pretty irrelevant unless we keep on exponentially increase our energy usage. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a few orders of magnitude higher.
sergeykish 6y ago
Look at the scale: > The Earth receives 174,000 terawatts (TW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere [1]. > The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47±2 terawatts (TW) [2]. Much of heat flux happens in ocean where crust is thinner. > The Earth's crust ranges from 5–70 kilometres in depth and is the outermost layer. The thin parts are the oceanic crust, which underlie the ocean basins (5–10 km) [3] Earth radius is 6,371 km, Earth core radius is 3,485 km, world deepest borehole is 12 km [4], they are not going to pump energy directly from the core. World energy consumption is 18 TW [5]. We would live in a different world if balance was different. No seasons and climate zones if internal Earth energy was comparable to Sun energy. Tropics near power plants if human consumption was comparable to Sun energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Earth [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

CorrectHorseBat 6y ago

No > Wouldn't the equilibrium temperature be both a function of energy in and radiation rate (which is also a function of temperature?) Exactly, and since we're not changing the energy in (that energy is going to reach us whether we pump it up or not), and thus the equilibrium does not change. Where else can all that generated energy go other than up?

rwcarlsen 6y ago
But it would otherwise go "up" at a slower rate - so heat adding more slowly but over longer. Pumping heat up is effectively compressing this time horizon - resulting in a difference in rate of heat added. Now if that geothermal energy was replacing nuclear or fossil fuel use, then it might be a wash. But as soon as that energy replaces hydro, wind, or solar (which don't add new heat to the atmosphere - just use heat already there) - then we would increase the rate of heat energy being added to the atmosphere.
- hansvm 6y ago
  Surface energy radiates from the Earth rapidly, something like a quartic function of temperature if I'm remembering correctly. We could add a lot of energy to the surface and suffer negligible effects.
- CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
  I looked it up again, and it seems like we're both a bit correct. My explanation would be correct if the earth is in equilibrium and there is no primordial heat left and all heat comes from radioactive decay, but surprisingly (to me at least) that is not the case. About 1/2 of the heat flow from the core to the surface comes from primordial heat. I'd say solar will also add some heat to the atmosphere because they reflect less sunlight than the surface. Of course, in the big scheme of things this is all pretty irrelevant unless we keep on exponentially increase our energy usage. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a few orders of magnitude higher.

sergeykish 6y ago

Look at the scale: > The Earth receives 174,000 terawatts (TW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere [1]. > The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47±2 terawatts (TW) [2]. Much of heat flux happens in ocean where crust is thinner. > The Earth's crust ranges from 5–70 kilometres in depth and is the outermost layer. The thin parts are the oceanic crust, which underlie the ocean basins (5–10 km) [3] Earth radius is 6,371 km, Earth core radius is 3,485 km, world deepest borehole is 12 km [4], they are not going to pump energy directly from the core. World energy consumption is 18 TW [5]. We would live in a different world if balance was different. No seasons and climate zones if internal Earth energy was comparable to Sun energy. Tropics near power plants if human consumption was comparable to Sun energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Earth [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption