Climate Change

Fair enough. I stand corrected
The ones I was aware of consisted of utilising the near surface temperature.
Deeper ones are new to me (never really looked into them), so thank you for the link.


As for the core dissapating heat, that's really not likely, as it's a long way down (about 4000 miles to centre of earth). The Kola Superdeep borehole is the furthest we've drilled (7.5miles), but that's really about as far as we can go with current technology (as far as I know), as " Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible."
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kola-superdeep-borehole

For comparison, if the earth was scaled down to the size of an apple, the crust we live on, would be about the thickness of the apple skin (most pictures you will find don't show it to scale).
There is so much heat stored within the earth (and we are that small), that the amount of time it'd take us to bleed off that heat I'd say the Sun would probably have swallowed us up by then. Though as you say, there are always unforseen side effects of whatever we do, and I'm sure at some point we will tap in at the wrong place setting off some kind of disaster!

 

And there’s the thing......

The scale of time and size as well as known but dimly understood cyclical variations makes some of the most alarmist warming predictions look a tad silly. Pollution and deforestation, on the other hand, is all too evident.

 

Here's a couple of quick drawings I made a while ago showing the depth of the earth (to scale, with average thickness) and the Atmosphere.




For the atmosphere, half of it is located in the troposhere, and the theremosphere is generally considered 'outer space' as air density is so low.
That thin layer up to the mesoshpere, is pretty much our our effective atmosphere. Any change in gas composition of the atmosphere would happen here. It's really not that big.

As another fun fact, geo-stationary orbit for satelites is about 23,500 miles up!

* edit - wording changed from "is what is being heated with greenhouse gases" to be more neutral, as pointed out by Callumity.

 

“ is what is being heated with greenhouse gases.”

Respectfully, that is an assertion based on a theory and not universally accepted as scientific ‘fact’. I know that makes me a ‘denier’ but sceptic would be more accurate.

 

Water pipes in the ground near surface levels are ground source heat pumps.
Heat recovery is installed internally to the building and recovers the extraction air heat and adds it back into the fresh air inlet

 

Yeah you are correct in your terminology! I self built, looked at both and rejected both! Couldn’t lay ground source pipes under a mature wood and heat recovery was just too long a payback for the installation costs even when done yourself.

The best return on investment BY FAR is insulation.

 

Yes I must admit,the more you look into most but not all environmentally sound heat and cooling solutions the cash recovery rarely enters the equation.
Although it ticks the box for the environmental grant.
but even with that it generally needs replacing before it’s saved you anywhere near the install cost added to your old fuel bill.

Fit 150mm kingspan, or equivalent saves a fortune on heating and cooling in the summer

 

Oh my walls, floors and ceilings comfortably exceed building regs with zoned underfloor heating throughout.....insulation and thermal mass.

 

How do you get on with the underfloor heating?
I’m only asking because i had economy 7 a long while ago but had to dump heat in the morning on a warmer day.

 

I am out in the sticks. Warm water, condensing oil boiler. 5 zones on both upper and lower floors. Upstairs only goes on when it is maybe 10 below and 2 of the 5 downstairs zones are normally not needed either. The kitchen needs no heat. Three bursts of warmth a day.
In short, it works really well and pretty economical.

 

Sweeet

 

I came across a series of videos from a PhD climate scientist who debunks the greenhouse effect. His presentation style is not the best, but he does provide a lot of data.

 

All I want to know is, can I tax a BMW M5 for the same money as a Toyota Prius

 

Started to watch this thinkihg I will just see the first few minutes. Surprisingly ended up watching the whole video. It does make you stop and think about the popular view that humans are responsible for the increase in climate change. Makes you wonder why this stuff is not promoted by the media?
Wessa

 

The third video he did shows that there is no greenhouse effect on Venus which has an atmosphere comprising about 98% (if I remember correctly) CO2 and the Earth only has 0.04%

 

there you go then. All the reason you need to ignore his ramblings.

Exxon knew fossil fuels were an issue for climate change since back in the 70's by funding research, but because it didn't help them as a business, they covered it up and spewed crap about it being 'uncertain'.

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

We can go even further back to the 1820's to the first people who discovered that carbon dioxide was a cause in the greenhouse effect (though they didn't use that term).

https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/future-calculations

An extract:

"The first person to give voice to the notion that Earth’s atmosphere traps heat and warms the planet was the French mathematician Joseph Fourier, who in the early 19th century asked a seemingly simple question: What determines the temperature of the surface of Earth? His calculations suggested that given the balance of incoming energy from the sun and outgoing energy (in infrared form) from the surface of Earth, the temperature should be much colder, well below freezing in fact. (Today climate scientists agree that Earth’s average temperature would be about 0°F without the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our actual average surface temperature is about 57°F.)

Fourier didn’t know how the atmosphere trapped infrared radiation. In 1838 the French physicist Claude Pouillet speculated that water vapor and carbon dioxide could account for the phenomenon, but there was no experimental proof that these gases absorbed heat. In 1859 John Tyndall, a professor of natural philosophy at London’s Royal Institution and a keen mountaineer, decided to test whether gases in the atmosphere could trap heat. Working in the Royal Institution laboratories, Tyndall developed an elaborate instrumental setup to measure the amount of radiant heat different gases absorbed. His work demonstrated that while oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen were transparent to infrared radiation, water vapor, CO2, and methane absorbed such radiation.

Tyndall realized that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the effect Fourier had calculated in 1824. As an alpine mountaineer, Tyndall had developed an intense interest in glaciers, which he and other scientists thought to be remnants of the vast ice sheets that covered large parts of Europe and North America during the last global ice age. What caused these huge changes in Earth’s climate? Could fluctuations in the level of greenhouse gases be responsible?...

...So if water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth, why was Arrhenius so interested in carbon dioxide? Earth is a watery planet, and Arrhenius, like other scientists, recognized that water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere and oceans in a matter of days and that its concentration in the atmosphere depends on the temperature. Carbon dioxide, by contrast, is not influenced by weather and persists in the atmosphere for centuries. Increasing or decreasing CO2 would change Earth’s temperature, which would in turn affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, thus affecting the temperature. This cycle turns CO2 into a control knob on Earth’s thermostat."

But science eh. Those guys must have been on the NASA payroll back then too.

 

Or not

 

Got links for the data from these youtube video shorts?

Or are we back to the whole "science vs a guy on the internet says" argument?

Cherry picking climate deniers for interviews is a great way to sway the mass pubilc to your side, but without evidence or data, it's all hogswash. It's a trick the mainstream media like to use more commonly now as it sells papers (or gets you on their website). Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it works, because a majority of people take it as read, and don't want to find the truth or investigate if it's true or not.

We have evidence that the temperature rises when there is more carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere from past records. We know temperature drops when there is less. We know that temperature plummets when you block the sun from warming the atmosphere (dust/ash/asteroid hits).
It seems a lot of people are happy to accept this, but don't want to accept that we can have an affect on it ourselves. Because that would mean we would have to change the way we do things.

 

Aah, but who is we?

The science is simply not a settled as some would have you believe and its very politicisation and promotion by journalists and activists makes it inherently suspect.

Google Atmospheric thermal effect and believe what you will.

 

You are missing the point that, theoretical climate change is being attributed to the greenhouse effect and specifically mans artificial production of CO2. Yes the earth is insulated by the atmosphere which traps heat, but the so called greeenhouse gasses are about 98% water vapor and CO2 is only 0.04% and mans artificial contribution to that is miniscule.

History, evidence, data and facts demonstrate that climate change has always occured naturally and in predictable cycles. Within human history, and far beyond on many occasions, the earth has been both significantly warmer and colder than present day...and we are still here.

"This cycle turns CO2 into a control knob on Earth’s thermostat" this is not true, as rises in CO2 have been shown to occur 600 to 1000 years after a rise in temperature, and again changes in CO2 both up and down have been proved to be cyclical and predictable.

But yet those predicting a global climate catastrophy, seem to think that we humans can somehow significantly influence the production of CO2 when that increase is due to the planets temperature increasing following its natural cycle. The earth gets warmer due to many cyclical factors in our galaxy, the ice sheets start to melt, a smaller area of ice reflects less heat back into space, more water vapour is produced, more CO2 is produced, all of which accelerates the rise in temperature, and this remains so whilst those other celestial factors influence the earth..and there is sweet FA that we can do about it. And then after about 12,000 years or so we start to go into another cooling period, water freezes at the poles increasing the ice sheets which reduces water vapour, traps CO2, and the increased ice also reflects more sun light (and heat) back away from the earth, all of which accelerates the fall in temperature...and there is sweet FA that we can do about that either.

Robbing the general public with climate taxes, and forcing us to spend more on alternative products will certainly do nothing to affect climate change. The only thing it will do is line the pockets of those that are involved in the huge climate change industry.