Following on from the pondering by Gordon Robertson on extra heat generated by the earth and how this might be accounted for in global warming theory, Mark Duffett has kindly sent in a note with some links:
For all of you out there who might actually be interested in learning something, this isn't a bad introduction:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
There is a flaw in the assumptions behind the statement contained therein about the practicality of geothermal energy extraction, but ignore that for the moment.
The bottom line here is the figure of 0.075-0.087 W/m2 for globally averaged heat flow (i.e. the flux of internally generated heat at Earth's surface). Note this is fundamentally based on upwards of 20,000 direct measurements. For comparison, the flux of solar energy incident on Earth at the top of the atmosphere is ~1360 W/m2.
You can draw your own conclusions about the likely direct influence of Earth's internal heat on climate.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93RG01249.shtml is recommended for a more in-depth treatment.
Cheers
Mark Duffett
Tasmania
SJT: If you want a roundup of the blogs, just keep on reading cohenite
"And Motl has restated the point in his usual ingenious way;"
This place gets funnier by the day. Motl, the great physicist, refers to Alan Siddons as an authority. He'll never live that one down.
No I'm right and you two are wrong. But I withdraw the accusation that it was Haughton who rang me. Since I was able to find that high-pitched hoity-toity voice with its hybrid accents elsewhere.
Lets go over it again. The science fraud side of the argument had averaged-and-homogenised all other influences (excepting only the colour component of atmospheric gasses) out of the debate.
Only now that we have cooling have they brought solar variation and other factors back into play. And only then as an excuse for their failed predictions.
I tried.
Twit
"I don't believe that climate science has ever said that greenhouse gases can't be "trumped" by other factors...."
THATS AN OUTRAGEOUS AND DESPICABLE LIE AND YOU KNOW IT????
We have been attempting to get the science fraud perpetrators to acknowledge other factors for years. And only now that the weather has turned frigid have they decided to recognise other factors AND THEN ONLY AS A PATHETIC EXCUSE!!!
Gordon,
Just read your post following mine on K. Nothing more needs be said on that matter then.
"Graeme, I have already asked you to please stop using words like "stupid", "fraud", etc. No one is going to want to talk to you if you use them. Insults do not add anything to the discussion."
I aint the least bit interested in faking it. Not even for a shaort time. Not even to take a holiday.
still can't help refering to blogs hey?
everything you need to know about us versus nature comes from direct experience
we have the tools built in
"What changes the net energy balance is the greenhouse gases or reflective pollutants." That's what the debate is about; I still think not enough attention has been given to the issues raised by the Pielke paper which shows that a radiative imbalance at the TOA, as demanded by AGW, does not mean temp increases because the temp effect or influence of outgoing radiation from a cool surface or area such as a LTE is less than radiation from a warm surface or area;
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
And Motl has restated the point in his usual ingenious way;
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html