On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:35 PM Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote:
> In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:23:13 -0400: > Hi Harry, > [snip] > >As I scan Zoe's various posts and her responses to her critics it seems > she > >insists that heat and radiation are related but also maintains that they > >are not equivalent or convertible. She maintains that a body can shine > >alone, but it will only shed heat as well if a relatively cooler body is > >nearby which can receive it. > >harry > Radiation has nothing to do with it at all. If the heat source is the > mantel, then the source is the mid-Atlantic ridge > where the crust is quite thin, and ocean water is readily heated resulting > in hot plumes, that are well known to exist > and bring dissolved minerals up to the ocean bottom. This is conduction & > convection. Nothing to do with radiation. > > I don't know whether or not anyone has taken the trouble to calculate the > amount of heat thus added to the ocean. > > BTW the web site you quoted used an erroneous value for the volume of the > ocean AFAIK. It was too small by a factor of > thousands. > The heat flux from the Earth has been estimated, and she agrees with the value, but it is way too small to contribute to global warming according to the standard view of heat and radiation which is why it is ignored by climatologists. However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is received by a relatively cooler body in space. Because space is mostly empty this mean the internal heat of the Earth can contribute to global warming rather than escaping into space. (Following her logic this could explain why the sun's corona is much hotter than the surface of the sun.) harry Harry
