Slashdot Mirror
Is the Earth Gaining Or Losing Mass?
Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC recently asked physicist and Cambridge University professor Dave Ansell to draw up a balance sheet of the mass that's coming in to the earth, and the mass going out to find out if the earth is gaining or losing mass. By far the biggest contributor to the world's mass is the 40,000 tonnes of dust that is falling from space to Earth every year. 'The Earth is acting like a giant vacuum cleaner powered by gravity in space, pulling in particles of dust,' says Dr. Chris Smith. Another factor increasing the earth's mass is global warming which adds about 160 tonnes a year because as the temperature of the Earth goes up, energy is added to the system, so the mass must go up. On the minus side, at the very center of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a sphere of uranium five mile in diameter which acts as a natural nuclear reactor so these nuclear reactions cause a loss of mass of about 16 tonnes per year." (Read more, below.)
Pickens continues: "What about launching rockets and satellites into space, like Phobos-Grunt? Smith discounts this as the mass is negligible and most of it will fall back down to Earth again anyway. But by far the biggest factor in earth's weight loss are the 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen that escape from the atmosphere every year. 'The other very light gas this is happening to is helium and there is much less of that around, so it's about 1,600 tonnes a year of helium that we lose.' Taking all the factors into account, Smith reckons the Earth is getting about 50,000 tonnes lighter a year, which is just less than half the gross weight of the Costa Concordia, the Italian cruise liner that recently ran aground."
It would have given me a nice excuse the next time my wife noticed I had gained weight. "It's not the junk food, honey. The earth is gaining mass and causing me to weigh more!!!"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
IF one assumes AGW the mass of heating the crust and atmosphere of the earth a tiny fraction of a degree per year isn't going to give tons either. Math people, try it sometime. It works a lot better than your hokey religion.
And neither match a good blaster by your side.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you responding to someone, or just ranting into the ether?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Since when does "added to the system" mean created or destroyed? The earth is not the entire universe. Energy gets added to us from the sun, for example.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
According to E=mc^2, one gram of matter is equivalent to 10^13 J of energy (according to Wolfram|Alpha).
energy is added to the system
i thought energy can not be created or detroyed
Moved, not created or destroyed.
Come out of your mom's basement, look up at that bright yellow object in the sky.
If there is any global warming, that's where its coming from.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Math people, try it sometime. It works a lot better than your hokey religion.
Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord jmorris42. Your sad devotion to that ancient math has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels' hidden fortress...
Some models do have some kind of nuclear-reactor thing going on at the very center, but it's indeed not right to present it as some kind of fact, when it's greatly disputed what might be there (and our evidence is very circumstantial). As far as I can trace it, the proposal for a "nuclear georeactor" in a sub-core of the inner core is due to J.M. Herndon, who proposed it in 1996, and has since developed the idea in various other papers. I don't think it's anywhere near consensus, though.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES?
I'm pretty sure he means that if the surface temperature increases by 1 degree C, then that corresponds to a higher amount of energy in the planet. it has nothing to do with burning fuel or anything else.
And here some people are worried about running out of uranium.
We'll never use up a 5-mile diameter sphere of uranium!
The problem is getting to it.
I mean if you believe "science" then it's surrounded by molten rock.
And if you believe the book journey to the center of the earth, then its surrounded by dinosaurs.
Both I understand are fatal to humans.
What about insolation?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Ah, so the earth isn't retaining an increasing amount of heat? What evidence do you base this assertion on?
Spread throughout the whole of the Earth, combined with how much we're incapable of utilizing, that totally doesn't surprise me. Consider how much energy from the Sun hits the Earth every year that all just goes to waste, let alone what is reflected or shines off in other directions.
I think only a reactionary, kneejerk idiot would make this kind of ridiculously wrong statement.
It'd help your argument if you had something more than a tenuous grasp on thermodynamics and the processes involved with the retention of heat. Also, do consider that when working with the masses of planets and the energy output of stars, 160 tons is so easy to come across that, yes, it is highly like that this is in fact the case. Funny, though, how you get so violently worked up over it.
... because half of that dust is on my car.
Global warming is not about added materials, it's about distributing materials that were in stasis, into the environment.
Get your facts straight.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Care to clarify? Or are you just threadshitting?
Depends which globe you are talking about. If you're not talking about Earth- you're off topic.
If you're talking about Earth and look at overall trend analysis graphs covering the last 100 years- the last 15 years fit in the scale correctly. Also 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred during the past 15 years.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Well, warming may not make things more massive according to classical physics, but in the Theory of Relativity, all energy counts as mass. E=mc^2, it goes both ways. Warm objects are very, very slightly heavier than otherwise identical cold objects. So if our atmosphere traps the heat of the sun, that will result in a slight increase in mass. Although I doubt even a few degrees of warming will make a 160 ton difference. c^2 is a pretty big factor.
Sadly, your attempt at condescendingly enlightening all of us succumbs to your own ignorance. The attribution of mass to excess thermal energy is not related to direct energy output from chemical reactions such as the burning of coal. It is instead related to the increased heat from the sun trapped by the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which raises the total energy storage of the system.
Knowledge, jmorris42. Try it sometime. It works a lot better than your hokey attitude of denial and foolishness.
Or just drill parallel pipes, pump cold water down one, get hot water up the other. No danger of a catastrophic meltdown, because, like, that's already happened.
Also has the beneficial side-effect of (allegedly) creating earthquakes, how cool is that?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
No wonder my TV is always covered. Time for a bubble dome to keep it all out.
Nobody is claiming that burning fossil fuels is causing an issue from heat released from the chemical reaction. Sort of like how if you detonate an atomic bomb, the fallout kills far more than the initial bomb blast.
Are you suggesting that mass is converted into energy in a chemical reaction?
The big yellow one is the sun!
So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES? Eh?
No. Burning is mass-neutral. Not only is it chemical, as you point out, but the energy released during burning is still in Earth, so by mass-energy-conservation, the total mass of the Earth is unchanged.
It's the increasing average temperature of the Earth that causes the increase in mass. That temperature increase is not energy released from burning fuel, but rather additional energy captured from solar radiation (as a result of increased atmospheric CO2). So ultimately all the additional mass is coming from solar radiation.
160 tons of mass ~= 10^22 J
Solar irradiance over the surface of the Earth ~= 10^17 W ~= 10^24 J/yr
Math people, try it sometime.
I see that you didn't take your own advice. I see no math in your post whatsoever, despite the fact that 1 kg of mass in energy is easy to compute and the total energy used by civilization has been estimated before.
IF one assumes AGW the mass of heating the crust and atmosphere of the earth a tiny fraction of a degree per year isn't going to give tons either.
See, here math would have been useful.
But Americans are attempting to even things out.
Average temperature anomaly for the past 15 years: 0.5 C
The 15 years before that: 0.2 C
The 15 years before that: 0.04 C
You were saying?
"Since the Earth's cross sectional area is 127,400,000 square km, the total Sun's power intercepted by the Earth is 1.74E+17 Watts but as the earth rotates, no energy is received during the night and the Sun's energy is distributed across the Earth's entire surface area so that the average insolation is only one quarter of the solar constant or about 342 Watts per square meter. Taking into account the seasonal and climatic conditions the actual power reaching the ground generally averages less than 200 Watts per square meter. Thus the average power intercepted at any time by the earth's surface is around 127.4 X 106 X 106 X 200 = 25.4 X 1015 Watts or 25,400 TeraWatts.
Integrating this power over the whole year the total solar energy received by the earth will be:
25,400 TW X 24 X 365 = 222,504,000 TeraWatthours (TWh)"
So what is the mass equivalent of 222,504,000 TeraWatthours if one gram of matter is equivalent to 10E+13 J of energy?
It's not quite as brain damaged as you might think. Relativity says that energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc^2), and this really does mean that warm objects are slightly heavier than otherwise identical cold objects. But 160 tonnes is a lot of energy, so I have my doubts there.
OP is correct. Going into an experiment with a preconceived bias isn't science, it's politics:
as the temperature of the Earth goes up, energy is added to the system, so the mass must go up.
But from TFA:
So taking into account the gains and the losses, Dr Smith reckons the Earth is getting about 50,000 tonnes lighter a year.
So AGW isn't happening, then?
Now you're just sounding desperate. They consider AGW to be a factor in the equasion, and that it adds mass annually. However there are still other factors that are affecting the mass and those have a larger value, so they outweigh AGW. It's called math (or maths depending on where you live).
There's this equation that relates energy to mass, let's see, how does it go? Oh yes, e=mc^2.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Don't think so. It is a pretty far out theory which has no real evidence and plenty of reasons why it does not hold up. But as I can't tunnel down to look, I guess anything is possible.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Maybe you're not smoking enough reefer?
I think the point the author is making isn't about the energy of burning fossil fuels, it's about the heat trapping that results. Normally the Earth is at ~100% energy balance with respect to solar radiation: a lot comes in (174 petawatts), and just about all of it gets radiated back out, continuously. But by trapping extra energy here on Earth in the form of heat, AGW gradually increases the Earth's total energy. E=mc^2 is not just for nuclear reactions: any system that gains or loses energy effectively gains or loses an equivalent mass. By how much? This guy says it's the energy equivalent of 160 tons of mass 160 tons, when converted to energy, is 1.44*10^22 Joules: a whole bigass boatload of energy. But, it is actually rather small (1/400th) compared to the total energy received by Earth from the sun in one year. So it doesn't take but a tiny percentage change the energy balance, accumulated over many decades, to get 160 tons of mass.
global ocean heat content (from NODC) has been flat for the last 10 years. As have air temps. So that would be zero accumulated weight in terms of heat energy - and in fact a net loss because of radiated heat from earth's core.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-116.png
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? Please try, if you can, to explain what was wrong with the statement.
To quote a later AC post that seems to also be from you: "You can't create mass, it's a basic concept in science."
Believe it or not, there's more to science than what you learned in grade school. If the composition of the Earth's atmosphere changes in such a way that it traps more energy from the sun, that will cause an increase in mass.
The gravitational mass would go up. Energy produces gravitation as well.
Visit the
Including the warmest year on record, which happened exactly 15 years ago. This is an excellent example of the denialists manipulating statistics to their own ends.
So you count the 16 tonnes a year from a nuclear reaction that may or may not be there, but you ignore the effects of space rockets, some of which have payloads in the hundreds of metric tonnes? (the Saturn V can carry 45 tonnes to a Lunar Injection orbit and over twice that to LEO.) Huh, interesting.
Also, what is this about the weight of the Costa Concordia? I want to know how many Libraries of Congress that is per year, damnit.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Wait, what? Isn't the mass already there but is just being distributed differently? What am I missing here?
I looked. The trend of the last 100 years involves coming out of the LIA, so it's not surprising we are still slowly warming up. Global warming is meant to be ACCELERATED warming caused by increased CO2. Starting around 1980. The last 100 years is nothing to do with it at all...
Over the last 15 years we have had increased CO2, and DECREASED warming. Bang goes your hypothesis - it's completely dead. That fact alone is enough to kill it.
Oh, and talking about 'warmest years on record' immediately marks you as a propaganda warmist - they are not evidence of anything. If you want to think like a scientist, try thinking about what might DISPROVE the global warming hypothesis. That's right - you'll find that NOTHING is accepted as disproof. It's not a science, it's a religion....
Ok, so you're threadshitting via ignorance. Good job.
Popping that number into Wolfram|Alpha, getting the conversion to Joules and converting that to grams yields 8.912×10^9 grams.
all black here with teeny white dots... sometimes a big white banana floats around, i say hi to it, half expecting it to turn out as my cat, but so far no ):
but then, that yellow friend of yours might be showing up when i'm hibernating... no idea, though i'll keep a lookout. maybe carve a hole in my coffin to notice it when it shows up
my sig pwns your sig
Honestly, though, the state that global warming is adding 160 tons of mass to Earth is just BS. You could say that if we were talking about geological time periods, but global warming (if it exists) definitely doesn't exist for geological time periods. Ice ages last long enough to get noticed by the planet's interior, warming periods do not.
It would take thousands to millions of years for a one degree average surface temperature change to work it's way through the entire planet. And even the worst case runaway global warming projections do not predict one degree per year. Long before the entire planet is heated by rising surface temperatures, the next ice age will hit us.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
at the very center of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a sphere of uranium five mile in diameter which acts as a natural nuclear reactor so these nuclear reactions cause a loss of mass of about 16 tonnes per year.
Sounds like the ultimate source of geothermal energy, so let's start drilling for it. Got to get there before Iran goes and makes a bomb out of it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
how much energy from the Sun hits the Earth every year that all just goes to waste
Try living for a couple of weeks facing nothing but deep space (e.g., south pole in June), then you'll learn what that energy is wasted for...
8912.48717 metric tonnes, but remember most of that is radiated back out, so the real question is what is the capture delta from any global warming
It's gaining mass.
One thing that most posters overlooked was the statement that the Earth's GeoReactor may be shutting down (in anywhere from 100 years to 1 billion years). The theory states that when this happens the earth will lose its magnetic field and then its atmosphere. Scary!
"Another factor increasing the earth's mass is global warming which adds about 160 tonnes a year because as the temperature of the Earth goes up, energy is added to the system, so the mass must go up. On the minus side, at the very center of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a sphere of uranium five mile in diameter which acts as a natural nuclear reactor so these nuclear reactions cause a loss of mass of about 16 tonnes per year." I'm dumbfounded by how retarded that is. Ever hear of "Convervation of Energy"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy It makes no practical sense that the planet would gain mass by an increase in temperature. I can see how an increased temperature could make the atmosphere slightly more inclined to escape, but even IF that happens, it'd be a relatively tiny mass compared to the dust and meteors that are showering upon us. Why are we even reading this? I should get back to work. This is stupid.
This is the funniest thing I have read all week. I thank you.
To add more math:
You'd have to heat 10^19 kg of air (air only) by 1 K to increase its mass by 160 ton. [ (160 ton * c^2) / (N_A * k_B * 1 K) * (29 g/mol) = 4.6 * 10^19 kg ] The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 10^18 kg (5 * 10^18 kg). So it's well within the realm of "you'd need to analyze this more carefully".
you might want to have a chat with Einestein about that... we're not creating mass... but mass itself comes from energy, and the more energetic (so to say) a particle becomes, the more massy it gets.
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
my sig pwns your sig
So what is the mass equivalent of 222,504,000 TeraWatthours if one gram of matter is equivalent to 10E+13 J of energy?
8912 metric tonnes.
The enemies of Democracy are
This estimate would be vaguely correct if you used the Earth's surface area. However, the Earth's cross-sectional area is area of the 2D disc that is formed by a meridian. The area of solar radiation it absorbs is exactly its cross-sectional area. (What part of the surface that happens to be changes as time passes and a unit of sunlight is spread over a larger surface around the edges, but the total area is constant and is simply the cross-sectional area.)
the mainstream view is that the iron-nickel core of the earth is of the same source and composition of iron-nickel asteroids, which have little or no uranium.
AGW science uses sophisticated computer modelling to show that the Earth's climate is driven by the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere...the 'forcing function'. The nuclear core theory provides for a nuclear reactor generating 4 terawatts of heat that must be continuously radiated into space. Moreover, the nuclear reactor output varies over time from full production to zero production to full production.
http://www.rense.com/general25/vore.htm
Such variation obviously has never happened or we would have seen major changes in the long-term climate. Therefore, the AGW science has thoroughly discredited the nuclear core science since there are obviously thousands of scientists who believe the AGW science versus only one or a handful who believe in nuclear core science and we have to give the verdict to the majority opinion. That's how we do science in the 21st century... As for TFA, is the Earth gaining or losing mass? Duh! + 40000 + 160 -15 = a whole lot of gain. There...solved that question too.
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
-- M.C. Hawking, "Entropy"
The enemies of Democracy are
Well, a kilogram of mass directly into energy is easy to calculate. E=MC^2, so 1 kg of mass is equal to 1 kg* (300,000,000 m/s)^2 which is 90,000,000,000,000,000 (kg*m*m)/s*s or 90 petajoules. That's 25 billion kilowatt-hours. Average monthly household electric usage is 920 kilowatt-hours, so that's 27,173,913 households for a month, or 2,264,492 households for a year. So, assuming 100% conversion to electrical power and no transmission loss (in the real world, less than 25% of that original power would probably be eventually usable in homes), it would power civilization only in the state of Maryland for a year. Of course, most power usage by civilization isn't residential electric. Most home heating isn't electric, then there's all the energy people use to travel, the energy used to produce and transport their food (we'll give the energy from the sun that grows crops a free pass) and to maintain the infrastructure and power other kinds of services and to power businesses as well as households. So, it wouldn't really power all of Maryland.
Wikipedia lists world total energy consumption as about 474 Exajoules in 2008. So the 90 petajoules from the 1 kg of matter, with a miraculous 100% utilization, would last keep civilization running for about an hour and 40 minutes. For a whole year, you'd need 5.27 metric tons of matter. If you actually take conversion and transmission loses into account, it's more like 25 minutes and 21.07 metric tons.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you responding to someone, or just ranting into the ether?
Dude, I got his blaster comment. Best laugh I've had all day!
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
It would take thousands to millions of years for a one degree average surface temperature change to work it's way through the entire planet.
So what? If the entire damn planet, core and everything, heated up by 1 degree the result would be a damn lot more than 160 tons of extra mass-energy!
The calculation is based simply on the estimated amount of excess solar energy retained. It has nothing to do with whether or not the energy spreads through the earth. The energy is already here, increasing the earth's mass.
The enemies of Democracy are
Wouldn't the uranium exist as an alloy with all of the other metals in the core and thus be dispersed? It appears the melting point of uranium is lower than that of iron.
No... it's about adding thermal energy, which by mass/energy equivalence ends up causing the earth to actually be more massive as a result
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Solar energy, however, does increase Earth's mass via energy, and a byproduct of that energy is global warming
That's what man-made global warming is. (The term "anthropogenic" is better here to imply that it's man-caused and not man-made.) We do things that increase the fraction of the heat from solar radiation that remains on Earth*. The Sun then causes Earth's temperature to increase.
* Specifically, since Earth is more or less in a vacuum, its entire thermodynamic exchange consists of radiation: (a) the Sun irradiating the Earth, adding energy and (b) Earth radiating out into space. Factor (a) is basically a constant (solar irradiation * Earth cross-sectional area) times some things that are variable: like reflectivity. Factor (b) is roughly black-body radiation: Stefan-Boltzmann constant * emissivity * T^4, where emissivity is the thing that is annoyingly complicated. The average temperature of the Earth is the value of T such that (a) = (b); that is, the Earth is in thermal equilibrium.
Also, as long as we're talking religion, AFAIK, nobody's ever drilled down to the Earth's Core. What makes them think it's made of Uranium?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Without working it out, how do you know?
It would take thousands to millions of years for a one degree average surface temperature change to work it's way through the entire planet.
Who said this had to be the case? Can you get 160 tons (in energy) of heat by heating only the atmosphere? Atmosphere plus surface water and land? What does it take?
Without data, you're just making shit up based on a guess.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious or not.
Nonetheless, assuming you are, your sense of up/down is actually derived from gravity, and not merely spatial positioning. Since gravity is always pulling you towards the center of the earth, you cannot perceive any difference in your orientation with regards to what direction is up.
However, if you use a specific star as a reference point, and look at how high in the sky it is at a certain time of night at on a particular day of the year at each location (or, if you are feeling lazy, use the north star, which has a roughly fixed position in the sky, so the time of year and time of evening won't matter), then you should be able to logically convince yourself that, when you are at different lattitudes, the direction that you call "down" has genuinely changed..
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wait - the expected global warming is on the order of 1 degree per century, not per year - so they are really off by 3 orders of magnitude. They aren't talking about warming the atmosphere. They are calculating the warming of the entire planet, including the core. Very silly - way before a 1 degree change has propagated even a tenth of the way in we will be back in the more usual ice age climate.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Sorry, we are losing about 2.4 LOC per year.
There's no evidence of a georeactor in the Earth's core. We know this by measuring the abundance of geoneutrinos - neutrinos generated by radioactive decay and nuclear fission. The KamLAND, Japan and Borexino, Italy discovered a ~50% deficit in geoneutrinos i.e. 22 of 44 TerraWatts of heat comes from radioactive decay. The rest is primordial, left over from the Earth's cataclysmic formation. If there was a georeactor there would have been an anomalous abundance in geoneutrinos (KamLAND detected fission neutrinos from nearby Japanese nuclear reactors).
The hypothesis of a georeactor, powered by a 16km diameter sphere of Uranium, was put forward by maverick scientist J. Marvin Herndon. He also believes the Earth is expanding and he rejects plate tectonics. Despite that, mainstream science did not ignore him but enthusiastically tested this georeactor theory.
Gando, A. et al., 2011. Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements. Nature Geoscience 4(9), 647-651.
Do the calculation yourself (or just read below) - it is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
They are calculating the warming of the entire planet, including the core.
Where's it say that?
Also, I gave figures for warming the air only, no water or land. It's a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if you're within a few orders of magnitude. If you're within 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, you need to work out whether your estimate is accurate enough, and mine isn't, by a long shot.
The better way to approach this is probably to look at the difference between solar insolation and thermal radiative losses to space, since those are easier to measure than what mass of the Earth is heating up how much. I didn't have radiative-loss estimates on hand, though.
The calculations are below in the thread. It is off by 3 orders of magnitude if you look at only atmospheric heating.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Non-enriched uranium with no moderator?
The guy's paper makes more sense. He suggests uranium sulfide at the core, with reactions having started when there was more 235U, so analogous to the Oklo reactor but with sulfur instead of water. Sulfur's not a good choice for a moderator, though.
Then it would have bred some plutonium, which is more fissile than 238U.
I don't know enough quantitative reactor physics to know if the hypothesis is workable.
Well, that technique gets really hard really fast - we know that the system is self-stabilizing. (For two reasons, first if it wasn't the temperature would vary a lot more, and second because black body radiation goes up with the 4th power of temperature - that is really hard to beat!) So the best technique is to use the best info people have come up with including all the variables, which is on the order of 1 degree of change.
If you were within 1 order of magnitude, I'd give it to you - but 3 if pretty far off.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
"If you want to think like a scientist, try thinking about what might DISPROVE the global warming hypothesis. That's right - you'll find that NOTHING is accepted as disproof."
That's false. What would disprove it?
*) Measuring infrared fluxes in the atmosphere and finding that they aren't changing as predicted by our chemistry and current knowledge of infrared scattering. This experiment has been done and the results match predicted theory.
*) space probes finding Venus to be just a bit warmer than Earth instead of the hell hole that it is.
*) clear global cooling trends
Adding heat to mass doesn't increase weight, D=m/v so the the volume would increases as density decreases.
Thanks, I was going to go through those same calculations, because I couldn't believe the numbers. In fact, I double checked your numbers (because I still had trouble believing) and came up with the same thing.
It's shocking to me that the energy accumulated by Earth from solar radiation is measurable in tonnes! Remember that the devastation from a nuke comes from a fraction of 1% of the mass of a relatively tiny piece of uranium.
To add a little more math, the atmosphere weighs roughly 5*10^21 grams. The specific heat of air is about 1 joule per gram-kelvin, so the solar radiance of the earth should raise the temperature 200 degrees centigrade each year if none was reflected or absorbed into the ground/water!
Even if you only assume the mass that this report claims is absorbed, it would add 2 degrees centigrade each year. Obviously some is absorbed into the ground, but either way it's clearly unsustainable. At some temperature, the Earth must radiate more than it is absorbing, otherwise we would burn up.
It seems clear to me that the temperature of the earth is going to be vary wildly depending on albedo/reemission, which life on earth affects by varying the composition of the atmosphere and surface reflection. This must be an influence on evolution - over the long run, organisms that tend to pull the temperature up when it gets too low and down when it gets too high would tend to succeed. By which I mean organisms that don't fit this profile would tend to wipe out virtually all life on earth, including themselves.
Maybe this is the cause of some of the extinction events in the fossil layers? It seems unbelievable that this hasn't happened before - some microscopic organism produces methane or CO2 in bulk and is very successful, then succeeds so well it fucks up the ecosystem for everybody.
It also looks like this is an existential test for humanity - maybe we can be the first multicellular organism to influence the temperature feedback loop enough to wipe ourselves out. Although I think it's more likely we'll just screw things up so badly lots of us die, until we lose the ability to influence the feedback loop enough to break it or we finally get the sense that our actions matter globally.
I'm having a bad day, apparently. All I can think of when reading your comment is the Autobot named Blaster.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Do the math. It doesn't work.
Remember, we're not talking total energy; just the delta in a year. If that is 0.1 degrees per year, that's what would need to fed into the energy/mass equation. Other comments in this thread show how the entire input of the sun on the earth in a year come out to 80 tons. I doubt the increase in heat year over year even makes one ton.
It's because of evolution. Animals falling towards earths center have the evolutionary advantage of not floating off into space.
There is even an xkcd comic that's slightly on topic:
http://xkcd.com/417/
and this video explains it very well (even if you don't understand swedish)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SNZuOHnFDk
It seems clear to me that the temperature of the earth is going to be vary wildly depending on albedo/reemission, which life on earth affects by varying the composition of the atmosphere and surface reflection.
Albedo and emissivity are basically what controls the temperature of the Earth. You do have to remember, though, that both the enormous thermal mass of the Earth and weird feedback effects can make this progress differently. (For example, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the albedo-emissivity gap, which increases the temperature of the earth. A higher temperature causes more CO2 to be dissolved into ocean water, which decreases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere -- though not by nearly as much as what was added initially. Feedbacks get much more complicated, though.)
Fortunately, albedo and emissivity don't change a huge amount, so the Earth stays vaguely in thermal equilibrium (by radiating away heat via black-body radiation).
Does anyone know what happened to my karma bonus? "No Karma Bonus" is unchecked, and my karma still shows as Excellent, but posts start at score: 1.
Oh, and some more math: it looks as if when you take the sphere around the sun circumscribed by the Earth's orbit, Earth takes up about 1/(2 billion) of it. So if the sun is radiating in all directions equally, it radiates about 2 billion times 16,000 tonnes = 32 trillion tonnes = 3.2 * 10^13 kilograms each year JUST IN ENERGY, ignoring particles. The sun weighs 2 * 10^30 kilograms.
Once again I expected the math to show a proportionally shocking amount of the sun being radiated in energy, but it turns out the sun is just really fucking big.
Who says adding heat to matter doesn't increase its weight? Although it's not reasonable to talk about the "weight" of things that are that large, it's better to speak of mass.
Since there are plenty of arguments against the other comments you've made I'd like to point out that:
So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is
You may know this- but so many people don't: there is probably less than 0.1% dinosaur in oil (I don't know the %- I made up that number)- it comes mostly from microbes and plants. I don't know where the myth that oil is all "dinosaur" came from. As if there is something special about the organic molecules in dinosaurs that made them specifically required for oil.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Not necessarily. I certainly don't buy numbers just because a scientician was quoted in a BBC article. But the point is that 160 tons is not an unreasonable quantity of heat.
So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES? Eh?
The heat energy released by burning fossil fuels is trivial. The source of heat that is causing global warming is the Sun and the fact that increased greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) capture more of that energy before it gets re-radiated to space. So that 160 tonnes is directly from the Sun and the energy it adds to the Earth.
I guess he wanted to add mass to the thread.
You can easily get lost in the "large objects produce larger numbers than you would have guessed, human" game. For example, figure out how much force solar radiation exerts (just in the form of light, since light carries momentum) on the Earth.
Yes, the Earth subtends a ridiculously small area, so the Sun is belting out an enormous quantity of energy -- so much that it's a lot of mass just in energy.
This is actually a decent way of working out the Sun-Earth thermal equilibrium, since from the color of the sun you can guess its temperature (very roughly) and thus its black-body radiation (which is more or less what solar radiation is), which lets you work out without measurement how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun.
Incidentally, your posts are starting at Score: 2. If you look at the comment overview on your page, though, the karma bonus is not included. (As a result, if you hit the cap of 5, which includes the karma bonus, it will show up on that page as capped at a score of 4.)
It takes about 15TW to power modern civiliation. That is about 500 exajoules of energy annually. In terms of mass, that works out to about 5,500 kilograms per year. One kilogram of mass converted directly to energy would last about 40 minutes.
The calculations are below in the thread. It is off by 3 orders of magnitude if you look at only atmospheric heating.
Then don't just look at only atmospheric heating.
Of course that gets more complicated... maybe our napkin engineering isn't up to the task and it would take more time -- like enough time to write a research paper -- to come up with a more credible answer.
They are not, however, assuming the entire core (or even a significant fraction of the planet below the surface) gets heated to arrive at that number.
The earth is 34.6% iron. That would mean 9.278E26 J to heat just the iron content of earth by 1 degree, which means 1.032E7 metric tonnes.
The enemies of Democracy are
The energy that is increasing the Earth's mass is NOT burning fossil fuels. The extra energy is coming from the Sun. The increased co2 in the atmosphere is trapping more heat which = energy which = mass.
It takes over 4 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius. Your 22,964.4 Joule figure would be sufficient raise the temperature of 5.5 liters of water by 1 degree C.
The earth's mass is slightly larger than 5.5 liters of water and thus requires slightly more energy to raise its temperature by one degree.
Try again
Grade school physics says we can then fix this whole issue by slowing down the acceleration of the Earth.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
So how does that translate to 160 tonnes a year? The total mass of earth is estimated as 5.9721986×10^24 kg or 5.9721986×10^21 tonnes. To raise that mass by 1 C requires 22,964.44 J of energy.
Ahem... 22,964.44 Joules of energy will not heat very much stuff up by 1 degree Celsius. That's less than the metabolic energy of 1 gram of fat. You missed something pretty important in your numbers.
Regardless, this was not talking about raising the average temperature of the entire mass of the Earth, but an increat in the "surface temperature" of the earth. There's a pretty big difference. However....
And it takes about 100 years to raise the temperature of earth by 1 C. So I'd say their math is way off.
I imagine it would take a pretty long time to raise the temperature of the entire mass of the earth by 1 degree Celsius. Not a "don't blink, or you'll miss it" timeframe like 100 years.
To raise that mass by 1 C requires 22,964.44 J of energy.
Even assuming you meant ~23,000 kilojoules (as your energy figure suggests), this is still off by many orders of magnitude. One kilogram of water takes 4.184 kJ, so ~23 MJ will raise ~5500 liters of water by 1 C. Per Wikipedia, the ocean is estimated at 1.3 * 10^21 liters. Raising that by 1 C takes 5.44 * 10^24 joules, which is equivalent to ~60,500 metric tons. Based on your assumption of 1 C per 100 years, that's 60.5 tons per year for the ocean alone, or 37% of the 160 tons given in the summary. Add in the rock and the atmosphere (including water vapor) and you've probably got a wild overestimate.
Now will the entire volume of the planet get a 1 C increase? I doubt it, but I'm not an earth scientist. I suspect it would mostly be the atmosphere, part of the ocean, and part of the dirt and rock. But the estimate given is definitely not 16 orders of magnitude off.
Visit the
Dude, your math is WAY off. How'd you go from mass to required energy without determining the specific heat of the earth?
Here, let me calculate the energy required to heat just the iron content of the earth (34.6% by mass) by 1 C: 9.278* 10^26 J, which is equivalent to 1.037 & 10^7 metric tonnes.
You are off by a LOT of decimal places. A mere 23kJ should have immediately tipped you off as not passing the smell test. That's less than 1/1000th of the energy released by burning 1 liter of gasoline!
The enemies of Democracy are
Can't tell if trolling or just....
Well played sir.
Who mods this stuff interesting when the calculation is so many orders of magnitude off? Seriously, 22 kJ to raise the earth 1 C? It's bad enough someone (Curunir_wolf) actually wrote the comment in the first place.
I hadn't thought about the Sun's radiation being essentially black box, but I can see that it is so and the interesting implications such as guessing the temp from the color.
Thanks for commenting about the score. I not only see my starting score as 1 in my comments, but also when I look at stories. As long as other people see them at 2, I guess I don't care.
Congratulations! You've just posted the most idiotic slashdot comment of 2012.
We've still got a little less than 11 months to go, don't be giving that award out just yet.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Solid angles! Your understanding is correct, but the OP has it right also (for a ballpark estimate). He is using an averaged irradiance at the Earth's surface [ W m-2 ] that takes into account the effect of projecting the cross sectional area onto a rotating sphere (and is also averaged daily and seasonally to correct for night and the tilt of the earth).
Another factor increasing the earth's mass is global warming which adds about 160 tonnes a year because as the temperature of the Earth goes up, energy is added to the system, so the mass must go up.
How does adding energy result in increasing mass, unless you're converting energy to matter? Surely if you heat something, it expands, but that does not increase mass!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Raising the surface temperature by 1 C isn't the same thing as raising the temperature of the entire earth by 1 C.
The calculation doesn't involve the volume, mass, or internal temperature of the earth - it's a straight radiative forcing calculation. Current estimates of the radiative forcing (difference between the solar energy* we receive from the sun and the energy we radiate into space) are about 1.6 W/m^2 from memory. Over the whole earth that's about 2.5E22 J over the course of a year. Divide by the speed of light squared, you get close to the right answer (I get about 280 tonnes, but I might be missing a minor correction factor or they might be using a lower estimate for the radiative forcing).
*Per unit time, per unit area
Approximately 1/10th of the energy the Earth is gaining from global warming remains in the atmosphere and most of the rest goes into the oceans which has vastly more heat capacity than the air. I'm thinking 160 tonnes is probably in the right ballpark.
- so they are really off by 3 orders of magnitude.
Probably not if you consider the heat being gained by the oceans as well.
No memo for you, because you got everything in your post wrong. Energy equivalence of a kg - 9e16 J. Annual world energy consumption in a year - 474e18. A factor of 5000 difference. So it's more like 2 hours. You see, this is math, and you might try it sometime. It's much better than your hokey religion. Also, nobody said burning dead dinosaur releases 160 tonnes energy equivalent. I don't know how you came up with that. Perhaps a memo stapled to your forehead EVERY SINGLE time you make up something would help. Let's just imagine the water in the earths oceans heats up 1C. Thats 1.33e9 km^3 of water, which is 1.33e24 cm^3. Raising it 1 C takes 5.6e24 J (4.184 J / cm^3). This is the mass equivalent of 6.2e7 kg of energy... which is 62,000 metric tonnes. Of course water expands when heated, and there would be PV work too, but still, the 160 tonnes figure is certainly not absurd. Again, to reiterrate. Math jmorris, try it sometime. It works a lot better then your hokey religion.
Wrong. Simply raising the the temperature of an object does not raise the mass. What are you guys smoking?
We're smoking Einstein's old pajama pants. Also, we're correct and you aren't. Higher temperature means more energy in a system. More energy means more mass. Yeah, it's a little weird. It's also an inevitable consequence of the constant speed of light, and the conservation of momentum and energy. Starting with those three assumptions you can prove that E=mc^2.
There are 1.3e9 km^3 of water in the world. That is 1.3e24 cm^3. It takes 4.184 J of energy to heat one cm^3 of water, so heating the oceans 1 C would take 5.6e24 J of energy. 5.6e24 / (1kg * (1e8 m/s))^2 is 6.2e7 kg. About 62 thousand tonnes mass equivalent. I'd say your math is way off.
Heating the earth's atmosphere by 1 C is also a pretty big factor. If you actually work it out for yourself, you'll find it's a lot bigger than c^2.
What I find interesting is that you have taken issue with the (admittedly back-of-the-napkin) claim that Global Warming accounts for the Earth "gaining ~160 tonnes/year". I'm willing to bet that the calculations Dr Smith used to arrive at the estimate that the Earth is "losing ~16 tonnes/year" due to the core cooling are even less accurate... and yet you don't seem to have any problem with those!
All that is to say: Your comment makes me think that you saw the words "Global Warming" in TFA and issued a knee-jerk "that's absurd!" reaction.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
"How one kilogram of mass directly converted to energy is so much fricking energy that it would probably power all of civilization for a year or more? So now burning (hint, just a chemical action) some dead dinosaur is releasing the energy equivilent of 160 TONNES?"
No! Nuclear reactions like fission and fusion are what convert tiny amounts of mass into huge amounts of energy!
Burning fossil fuels is a chemical reaction, that generally to my knowledge just changes chemical bonds, releasing energy from some of them. Mass is not destroyed in chemical reactions, to my knowledge.
Perhaps I can help you with a problem you seem to be having ie. story http://www.thefreedictionary.com/story vs. report http://www.thefreedictionary.com/report.
Now stories when presented by web media sites, need to contain a broad range of elements to appeal to a mixed audience. The science in them also needs to be expressed in more literary terms and be entertaining as well as educational.
So have some empathy for the other people of this planet, it seems you are offended by their lack of intellect and ability to absorb more accurate scientific reports.
News at 11, light scientific stories and light and lack the intellectual mass to keep intellectual helium heads bound to the earth.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
You're right - it doesn't even pass the common sense test now that I look at it. I must have dropped and exponent somewhere. That's what I get for rushing a post.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
-- I am a crackpot
So you are, so you are.
Every end has half a stick.
The internal heat is leftover from the pre-moon/pre-earth collision, if you believe in the big-impact theory.
Even if you don't, the gravitational binding energy of the planet Earth would cause it to have a hot core for a very long time.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yeah, I must admit to being a bit perturbed by the "definite" language used by that statement. Theories involving geophysical fission at the core of the Earth are intriguing, but they're just theories, and kind of on the fringes of the discipline. Saying "there exists" is scientifically kind of insulting.
Hey look another idiot like the OP who thinks "Do the math!" means use vague qualitative statements!
Guess what, "ginormous" and "miniscule" have different meanings when talking about the scale of the earth, and the energy received by the sun. The sun dumps thousands of metric tonnes worth of energy on the earth every year. The earth masses at around 10^24 kg. 160 tonnes is in fact minuscule. It can't realistically be accounted for just by atmospheric heating, but that's not the same thing as saying it's completely unrealistic.
Idiot.
The enemies of Democracy are
Science is sometimes just interesting, and our current understanding of the science overwhelmingly points towards anthropogenic greenhouse emissions being responsible for a quantifiable and observable degree of warming. Yes, the figures turn out to be much smaller than the dust gain and hydrogen/helium loss. But it's still an interesting calculation to perform, regardless of whether armchair physicists scream conspiracy or "green religion" nonsense.
If you do want to do the calculation, the chemical energy loss isn't the figure you should be using. It's already well understood that the direct heat output from burning fossil fuels is a very small proportion of the heat budget. It's the difference between the solar energy input and radiative energy output that you need to use - the radiative forcing as it is known.
That's about 1.6 W/m^2 right now. Times the surface area of the earth, that's about 8.2E14 W. Over a year, that's 2.6E22 J. Divided by c^2, that's about 290 tonnes. I'm not exactly what figures were used (whether different estimates of the forcing were used, which contributions to the forcing were counted as "global warming", whether variables such as El Nino, La Nina and solar variations were taken into account, and over what timescale), so there may be something I did differently. But yes, the calculation does give tons.
That you think a team of Cambridge University physicists didn't "try [math] sometime" because your arm-waving armchair explanation disagrees with their calculation is truly an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your post is indeed insightful. It sheds insight as to why climate change denial is so widespread here on slashdot.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1929193/is-the-earth-gaining-or-losing-mass
Most of the heat goes into the ocean. The top 10 feet of ocean contain as much heat energy as the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the ocean is over 12,000 feet.
Are you suggesting that mass is converted into energy in a chemical reaction?
Matter isn't converted into energy, but if energy is released then so is mass (as we normally think of it, like it causes stuff to weigh more on a scale and have more inertia and so forth).
The enemies of Democracy are
m = E/c^2 I believe energy creates gravity equivalent to its mass.
Isn't the difference between a year and a century 2 orders of magnitude rather than 3?
[...] 23kJ[...] That's less than 1/1000th of the energy released by burning 1 liter of gasoline!
And that's why cars are causing global warming! duh.
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
So how does that translate to 160 tonnes a year?
Hmmm... I dunno... Maybe something to do the the energy of the sun and the greenhouse effect? You know, that shit you conveniently forgot about/ignored.
What a troll. The warming mechanism is irrelevant - I was only trying to determine how they arrived at that figure (with really bad math - yea, I messed up my calculations, there).
Still, it seems greenhouse effect is much more important, as the Met has decided that even with a significant drop in the output of the sun, the greenhouse effect would continue to warm the earth, with an insignificant affect from less solar energy.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
But not only the atmosphere is heating up. The oceans are warming. The warming is also causing ice to melt into water. And of course upper part of the crust will also heat up because the atmosphere and ocean will heat it. I would think that the total mass that has warmed is several orders of magtitude greater than the mass of the atmosphere.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The comment one screen below (which is the only one I've seen so far that bothers to do the math) shows that the energy the Earth receives from the sun is equivalent to about 16000 tons of mass per year. Granted, it could be wrong, but you're not showing any math that demonstrates that it's wrong.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Yeah it sucks how the earth warms 1000 degrees every time I drive to work. Sorry for cooking everyone! :)
The enemies of Democracy are
Off course you can create mass. It is piss easy ... all you need is energy.
Mass energy appears to be conserved in the universe, but having one you can create the other.
No, a short period of decreased warming does not disprove AGW. Solar output varies, so when solar output is low, we would expect to see decreased warming. Now an extended period (several decades) of little or no warming would disprove AGW. Let me know when that happens.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I've always wondered, where does the increased mass manifest itself? Is it distributed amongst all the atoms in the object?
Say I have a lump of copper comprising 10^23 copper atoms. When I take it out of the freezer, does the mass of each one of those copper atoms increase? Taking the question down still one more level, do only the nucleons of those atoms gain mass, or do their electrons become more massive as well?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Just for your information, the idea behind AGW is not that burning fossil fuels directly heats up the earth like a fireplace heats up a house. It changes the atmosphere to trap and retain more of the suns energy that strikes the Earth, which is far and away more energy than us puny humans could even consider using. Think of it like this, burning fossil fuels is like opening up some flypaper around the Earth and that flypaper catches little bits of sunshine flies over time that do not escape and raise the mass of the system.
Hmm, makes sense. Water is about 1000x as dense as air, and has 4 times the specific heat. The top 10 feet of water would then be about as "heat massive" as 4000 feet of air at surface pressure.
You also need to assume the relativity principle and causality, but yeah...
The enemies of Democracy are
Most of the warmth from global warming goes into the oceans. Considering the heat capacity of water compared to air it doesn't take that much ocean warming to make a 160 tonne difference.
Perhaps you've heard of that Einstein fellow?
The extra mass is the kinetic energy of the system. Energy is mass.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Global warming has not ceased. 2005 and 2010 were tied for the hottest year in record in 2 of the 3 major temperature records (NOAA & NASA/GISS). Most global warming energy is captured by the oceans and some goes into the land as well. The oceans have thousands of times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
1988 is the warmest year on record in the HADCRUT record. That's the one that comes from the vilified Phil Jones' group. I guess it's ok for the denialists to use his data when it suits their prejudices. In the NOAA and NASA/GISS records 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest year. The reason for the difference is that HADCRUT doesn't cover the polar regions as well as the others.
You have it all inside out. You can't have your mass converted into energy and still have your mass. Maybe it's not very obvious in case of the whole planet, but take this elementary example. Annihilation of electron and positron creates pair of gamma photons. That is electron and positron disappear and two gamma photons with total energy equal to mass equivalent of the original electron/positron pair appear. As you probably know, photons have mass 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation
The energy for global warming comes from an external source, the Sun. The thermal energy in the core is internal to the Earth so converting from mass to energy doesn't change the total mass of the Earth.
It's actually about 60,000 tonnes per year.
1360 W (solar constant) * pi * 6380000^2 (radius of earth squared) * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25 (seconds in year) / 3E8^2 (c^2) = 61000 tonnes. Marginally lower if you subtract albedo losses. If it's off by about a factor of four, the surface area of the earth might be used instead of the area of the earth's disk.
I saw Herndon give a seminar on this topic a few years ago. It is a plausible theory, but not an established fact, and not accepted by most in the field. As I recall, we don't understand the earth's core well enough to know if enough uranium could have collected at the center for a reactor to happen. One way of testing the idea is to look at the flux of anti-neutrinos coming from the earth. If the number is greater than can be explained by beta decay of the thorium-chain elements, it would point toward a geo-reactor. I seem to recall that some proposed neutrino detectors have a chance of measuring this. They have to be able to discriminate against the large flux of neutrinos coming from the sun. An interesting part of the theory is that the geo-reactor proposed by Herndon will run out of fuel relatively soon, so if it exists the earth will lose and important source of internal heat and begin cooling much sooner than if all the heat comes from radioactive decay.
My SIG is a P226
Photons have zero rest mass. But because photons travel at the speed of light, they do have mass.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Yep. The hydrogen fusion reaction doesn't produce much light at visible wavelengths. Just like with anything in space, the sun only loses energy through radiation (and particle loss), so it heats up until its radiation balances the energy production (to be fair, this only gets you the surface temperature of the sun). More or less.
Yeah, I also buy the 160 T. 1/10 is an interesting figure. Of course the capacity of the oceans is enormous compared to the atmosphere; the controlling factor there will be how rapidly heat can actually flow into the oceans.
That was a new one to me. From the link, they theorize that because it is the densest naturally occurring element. In a freshly forming proto-Earth that was mostly molten, the denser elements would settle to the core.
Makes sense, but I don't believe the engineering problems would ever be solved in my lifetime to drill to the core of the Earth, so I will never know. I also can't imagine why someone would want to do that, unless that Uranium turns out to be mankinds last source of energy at some point.
Agreed, at worst AGW is a useful hypothesis, but you have to admit so was the bible at some point. I'm keeping an open mind while endeavouring to reduce my *energy* footprint as a matter of good survival.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
It's not the whole Earth that's getting warmer. The interior is cooling. The lower layers of the troposphere are warming, and maybe the top Copley feet of the land and oceans.
Maybe you have some option set to ignore karma bonuses? There used to be these sorts of score adjustment controls, but I can't find them anymore.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Math and science fail.
E = mc^2
E = 160,000kg* 3.0*10^8m/s * 3.0*10^8m/s = 1.44*10^22 J
This is approximately 1/400th the energy we receive from the sun, which yields just enough additional warming to give us the positive global temperature anomaly we're seeing today.
Burning fossil fuels does not increase mass or energy. The additional energy trapped by additional GHGs is where the 160 tonnes figure comes from.
~X~
The earths orbit does decay over time. It doesn't have booster rockets to maintain its orbit. At some point it'll become one with the sun. Maybe from orbital decay, maybe from the sun expanding into a giant star. Unless of course the Earth is destroyed or the sun has a nova or supernova first.
I'm not as sure of the 1/10th figure now as when I wrote that. It may be less. Heat flows into the ocean in many ways. Some is directly absorbed from sunlight, some is convected from the air, some comes from rivers and streams flowing into the ocean but I suspect a lot of it comes from rain falling into the ocean. The thermal inertia in the Earth system causes a delay of 20-40 years in temperature change from global warming. Most of the inertia comes from the ocean.
'The Earth is acting like a giant vacuum cleaner powered by gravity in space, pulling in particles of dust,
Could this be the first ever genuinely witty pun in a /. header, or merely a freak accident?
One quite vivid way of doing this is looking at the moon from different hemispheres too. Most people have looked at the moon and seen the mares on it, darker grey areas contrasting with the 'white' areas (yes I know they aren't actually white and in fact still quite dark, the moon has a very low albedo etc.)
I'm Australian, but when I first went to the northern hemisphere, I got this vague impression that something looked 'wrong' with the moon, but I couldn't quite figure out what. I eventually realised that it's because it was "upside down" from how it normally looks (since in the northern hemisphere the moon will be in the southern sky, and vice versa, you're going to be looking at it from a different angle unless you like bending your neck back over your head greater than 90 degrees...)
Your innumerate ranting about needing to do math refused to do any math. And come on, merely mentioning global warming's contribution to the Earth's mass budget makes one a zealot? Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Who's the zealot here?
Let me do the math for you.
Cumulative ocean heat uptake through the latter half of the 20th century, largely due to global warming, is about 1.5 * 10^23 Joules for the upper 700 meters of the ocean alone (referencerough calculation).
You are, at least, correct in saying that the mass equivalent of global warming is probably dwarfed by the error bars on the Earth's net mass budget.
Indeed, it would take an unbelievably long time to raise the temperature of the ENTIRE planet by one degree Celsius, but with two google searches and a couple of simple equations you can calculate the raising the temperature of the 5.97*10^24 kilogram ball of iron and nickel we call Earth by one degree Celsius would increase the Earth's mass by about 33 million tons, not a mere 160.
Even without reading the article, I think it is safe to say the 160 ton per year figure is derived from the heating of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which are getting measurably warmer and will continue to do so no matter how loudly you shout 'la-la-la can't hear you' while sticking your fingers in your ears.
Oops, HTML got garbled. And I got the timescale wrong (1.5 * 10^22 J of heat accumulation is over about the 10-year period of 1995-2005, not the "latter half of the 20th century".
Here's the intended post:
Your innumerate ranting about needing to do math refused to do any math. And come on, merely mentioning global warming's contribution to the Earth's mass budget makes one a zealot? Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Who's the zealot here?
Let me do the math for you.
Cumulative ocean heat uptake over the 1995-2005 decade, largely due to global warming, is almost 1.5 * 10^23 Joules for the upper 700 meters of the ocean alone (reference). By E = mc^2, this works out to about 1700 tons over about 10 years, or about 170 tons per year, as the article claims.
The mass-equivalent from global warming is not due to the energy released by combustion, but rather to the excess heat trapped by the greenhouse effect. The latter is about 100 times bigger than the former (rough calculation).
You are, at least, correct in saying that the mass equivalent of global warming is probably dwarfed by the error bars on the Earth's net mass budget.
Dr. Herndon: I first came upon the idea of planetary-scale nuclear fission reactors by considering the Gas Giants.
I first came upon the idea of planetary-scale nuclear fission reactors while reading Superman comics as boy. I think Krypton's uranium core was described by 1956. Hope we do better...
There's probably more energy in the lava way before you get to the core, than in the uranium core itself.
It's not the mass of the earth that's being increased 1C, it's the mass of the air near the surface.
And just how do you suggest doing that without increasing the temperature of the ocean?
The difference between 1 and 100 is 2 orders of magnitude.
I think the traditional view is that it is a combination of radioactive decay and heat left over from the formation of the earth. Not counting recent global warming, the earth is on average loosing energy as heat from both these sources is radiated into space. That may be a much larger change in relative mass than the other effects discussed here.
The most baseless claim in the summary is that there is a 5 mile wide sphere of Uranium acting as a nuclear reactor at the centre of the Earth.
There is no evidence for this, it's just wild speculation.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Pedantry. It's still nearly nothing compared to the mass of the earth.
I am gaining mass too! For several years now. Cant stop it!
Of course, like I said, only the heat from the sun trapped by the atmosphere will result in a slight increase in mass. Burning fuel by itself does not, since burning reduces the mass of the fuel: leftover solids and gases from the fuel will weigh very, very slightly less, the difference in mass (bonding energy, which counts as mass too) being transformed into heat which "weighs" the same.
I find the lack of comments about your lack of faith being disturbing, disturbing.
Can we put out a memo that EVERY SINGLE science story doesn't need a green religious hook in it? Please? You guys are worse than the most rabid Pentecostal.
You're the only one frothing at the mouth with rage that I can see.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What a pathetic attempt at a strawman argument.
The link I provided showed a rough estimate of how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the oceans in order to show how ludicrous the 22,964.44 Joule figure given above is. I never said anything about the entire mass of the earth and the fact that the mass of earth's oceans is substantially less than that of the planet has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
I do claim it: strain energy in material objects will manifest itself as a change in mass. However, it's not something that you are likely to see in an experiment. The mass equivalent of the energy you could realistically put into a laboratory-sized spring would be almost impossible to detect in the noise. c^2 is a really big number.
I didn't click the link. I was responding directly to this sentence.
Siiiigggghhhh. Let's spend five seconds to find out if that's true.
Element density[g/cm^3]
Os 22.61
Ir 22.56
Pt 21.46
Re 21.02
Np 20.45
Pu 19.84
Au 19.28
W 19.25
U 18.95
[all the others]
It is perhaps more correct to say that uranium is one of the densest metals, and of the dense metals, has relatively high abundance (2.7 mg/kg of Earth's mass. All the others on this list, other than tungsten, are measured in micrograms/kg, or less).
I am pretty sure the Earth is losing mass if you count the atmosphere. Gas molecules in the atmosphere have a velocity distribution based on their temperature. Way up at the high end of the bell curve are some with speed exceeding 11.2 km/s. And some portion of those are moving in a direction where they won't collide with the earth's surface, so, goodbye! My understanding is that light gases in the upper atmosphere (H2, CH4) are most susceptible to this because they can receive impulses from collisions with heavier molecules, and in the rarefied upper atmosphere they are less likely to be deflected earthward due to a subsequent collision. This model was described to me in Astronomy 101, literally, as the prevailing theory why Mars has a thin atmosphere and Mercury and the Moon have none. (Venus ostensibly still has an atmosphere for the same reason Earth does: large mass so high escape velocity.) I am very surprised to not see it even considered in the "balance sheet" since I'd expect it to massively outweigh the mass equivalent of solar heat retained.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Ok, so I understand the mass-energy equivalence with regards to the fact that energy can be *turned into* mass, e.g. through nuclear reactions (Fission of light elements [lighter than iron] or fusion of heavy elements [heavier than iron]).
But, so far as I know, heat energy at "normal" levels doesn't drive fusion or fission? Does the mere increase in vibration and rotation of atoms cause those atoms to gain mass even without undergoing a nuclear reaction?
Yeah, this is such a ridiculous idea. If there was actual fission going on, it would have run out of fuel long, long ago. The earth's geothermal heat escaping from the surface is (more or less) about 20% heat from formation, 80% heat from radioactive decay. U-238 has a half life of 2 billion years or so, providing a nice explanation.
This guy sounds like a real crackpot. He suggested that variations in the uranium core's output could be responsible for ice ages, etc. Geothermal heat is on the order of mW*m-2, not enough to effect climate. Besides, for the heat to get to the surface, it has to convect through the mantle and then conduct through the lithosphere, so any variations could only affect surface geothermal output on timescales of hundreds of millions of years. Maybe million years with mantle plumes/hotspots.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
This bickering is pointless. The *real* question is, how much energy would be required to overcome the molecular cohesion of an Earth-sized body conglomerate of solid, liquid and gas?
It's for a school project...
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Ok... I am out of my depth here but lets give this a try....
Increase in energy = Increase in Mass according to the ratio we get from: E=mc^2
But the core is at the center of the earth. So.... some amount of mass is converted to energy, I am ok with that but, isn't that energy mostly absorbed into the surrounding core and layers of earth around it? Wouldn't that mitigate what would otherwise be a net loss in mass? Or is this 16 tonnes the amount that escapes as neutrinos or some other manner?
Or am I just plain missing something?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Even if there were a large ball of Uranium at the center of the Earth, there would be no net change in mass from nuclear decay as the energy it created would have a mass identical to the matter that was annihilated to create it. Yes, this energy would eventually come out as heat and could be lost to space, but it would get rolled into all the other planet-wide processes that generate or lose heat. No meaningful measure of "planetary mass loss due to fission in the Earth's core" is possible.
I'm not entirely sure you fully understand the mass-energy thing. It's not quite as simple as just that equation, getting thrown around here. If it were as simple as that equation it would be easy to accelerate, say, a spaceship to the speed of light. But of course that's not possible. There's more to the equation than just E=mc2. That's the high school version of it.
You cannot create mass. You can increase or decrease the mass of an existing mass, but you cannot create it. Even a photon has mass, hence trapping incoming photons in the atmosphere with things like, oh CO2, adds mass to the Earth.
Well, the energy required to mass-scatter the Earth against it's own gravitational binding energy is around 4e32J, or about 11 days of the Sun's total output. Which is insignificant compared to the power of the Force, but still nothing to sneeze at.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Ah, but one could agree to climate change and not necessarily agree it is anthropomorphic related.
I'm not entirely sold on the idea that all this warming is a result of anthropomorphic changes. However, I'm not sold on the idea that it isn't either. As a result I prefer to err on the side of caution, and say it's possible it is anthropomorphic, and probable that at least some of the warming definitely is, and thus we should attempt to remedy it. but the Earth does have a habit, and documented history, of heating up and cooling down considerably all on it's own. Even during the short span of human kind.
Taking into consideration:
1) I am not an atmospheric physicist who makes study of the phenomena, and that a good number of such scientists say it is anthropomorphic, I'm inclined to agree with them,
2) Scientists have been known to be terribly firm in their beliefs in things only to be proven wrong, (human flight is impossible, evolution is impossible, plate tectonics is a lunatic theory, etc),
3) I haven't done the research or math to really agree one way or the other.
So other than the fact that it's really stupid to continue to pollute the planet because "it's too expensive to clean it up", I tend to to agree with the anthropomorphic theory, even if it may be ultimately wrong or exaggerated. However, I would agree that our current understanding of the science overwhelmingly points towards a quantifiable and observable degree of warming. I have yet to see conclusive proof it is largely or solely a result of anthropomorphic greenhouse emission. But since we don't have another Earth to experiment with, it might be a bit hard to produce that proof. And no, doing small or even large experiments in a lab cannot reproduce all the variables to get a proof. And again, no, a computer model run on the biggest, meanest super computer doesn't qualify either.
To be fair, the article was written by mathmeticians, not geologists. I think they were just enjoying "doing the math", rather than trying to make scientific statements.
The article is from the BBC Radio 4 programme "More or Less", which is a wonderful show which basically "does the math" on all things current affairs. Well worth looking up on the old iPlayer.
I am not a believer in this Uranium core theory, its a new one to me, but if you go to the link in the summary, you will get a blanket statement to the effect that under the extreme pressures inside the Earth, density is dependent only on atomic mass. Uranium has a higher atomic mass than all of those elements you mentioned so it would be denser within the Earth. Good luck finding a reference on how elements densities vary with extreme pressure like inside the center of an Earth sized planet though.
The question was how it was calculated. The thread was hijacked by trolls who turned it into an AGW debate, which is off-topic. According to the United Kingdom Meteorology Office, the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Why or how is off-topic. The only question is how in light of the Earth not warming in 15 years, regardless of cause or reason, figures into the mass calculations.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Huh?
It's steadily increasing according to these graphs: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Wrong. Simply raising the the temperature of an object does not raise the mass. What are you guys smoking?
We're smoking Einstein's old pajama pants. Also, we're correct and you aren't. Higher temperature means more energy in a system. More energy means more mass. Yeah, it's a little weird. It's also an inevitable consequence of the constant speed of light, and the conservation of momentum and energy. Starting with those three assumptions you can prove that E=mc^2.
To do the math:
1 kg of Carbon Steel raised 1 degree Kelvin will gain 5.45e-9 grams
Specific heat of Carbon Steel = 490 J/(g*K) /8.99e16 m^2/s^2 = 5.45e-12 kg or 5.45e-9 g
Energy required to raise 1 kg 1 degree K = 490*g*K = 490*1000*1 = 490000 joules (kg*m^2/s^2)
mass of 490000 joules = m = E/c^2 = 490000 kg*m^2/s^2