3 ms·
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 - re
by 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 agoSurface 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 agoI 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.