I have become curious about something. The core of the Earth is alleged to be molten. It’s also a fact that the deeper you dig into the Earth, the warmer it gets. Where is that heat coming from… surely not from the Sun. What’s the possibility that the Earth generates some of it’s own heat from geothermal processes?
When I studied a bit of geology, we learned that the Earth is actually oblate, like a pumpkin. That shape apparently comes from the stress of the gravitational pull of the Sun the Moon. As the Earth moves in its orbit about the Sun, it is flexing due to those stresses, and cracks in the Earth heat up as they rub against one another.
There are estimates that the Earth’s core may be in the vicinity of 5,000 to 6,000°C. That heat has to go somewhere. There is also a theory that the core may be turning at a differnt rate than the rest. There would be immense friction in that case, and immense heat generated.
Posted by: Gordon Robertson at August 17, 2008 08:18 AM
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer – if you’d managed to take in any of the geology you allegedly studied, you would have remembered that the earth is an oblate spheroid because it spins. (You may recall that stuff about centripetal force from high school physics.)
From what I can gather from the geologists I know, the heat of the earth’s core is partly due to pressure, and partly due to radioactive decay. Please do try to keep up.
Chris Crawford said at the original post (I have corrected one phrase):
“Gordon Robertson inquires into the source of the high temperatures [inside the earth] and then correctly speculates that tidal friction might be one source. However, decay of radioactive nuclei is considered to be the more important source, although I don’t have the numbers at hand. We can calculate the amount of energy coming from tidal friction by measuring the rate at which the earth’s rotation is slowing down.”
Congratulations, Gordon, you’ve managed to arrive at approximately the level of the introduction to second-year geophysics. Your point is what, exactly?
Frankly, Jennifer, this is beneath you.
Hi Mark and others,
What is wrong with blog comment at the level of second-year geophysics?
Indeed I am not sure why you and many others are so sensitive about some of my recent posts. (I’ve been told even Tim Lambert has been offended.)
I’ve just been providing an outlet for those with time to ponder these important and difficult issues and concepts.
I don’t think Gordon or Alan or even Bill claim perfect knowledge.
But some of the responses to these harmless ponderings (at this harmless blog) indicated many believe discussion of science should be somehow sanitized and that those with an imperfect knowledge of physics should not be allowed to participate in the discussion?
It is perhaps worth remembering this is a blog, not a text book.
Thanks, Jennifer, the problem is interesting.
It would appear Gorden’s remarks imply the Earth does not behave like the black-body used in AGW formulas. As a consequence, the extra heat generated by the earth is not taken into account. For example, between the expanding plates.
How much extra heat is generated, and does it vary?
“It is perhaps worth remembering this is a blog, not a text book.”
That’s exactly it, though, Jen. These sorts of fundamentals are readily accessible in any text book (and I’m being fairly generous in rating this as 2nd-year level; it’s also covered in many more basic texts as well as numerous popular treatments of geoscience and astronomy). My expectations of this blog are for challenging and/or contentious current issues at the interface between the environment and politics – in other words, the sort of thing that isn’t likely to be in any text book.
You could think of it as a backhanded compliment that this so conspicuously fails to meet those expectations. I don’t want discussion of science sanitised – just reasonably well informed.
Well Mark, you are most welcome to send in a contribution and I will post it as a new thread.
Of course the earth does not act like a black body in AGW formulas. It is not a black body. It is not noon all the time. It is not twice as far from the sun as our own earth and so forth.
It is moronic to talk about the earth like it is some sort of black body flat surface with an air and light show doing the whole thing and the colour-of-gas being the main determinant of everything when we have such a tiny amount of gas and thousands of kilometres of earth all jam-packed with joules.
Now to Mark Duffet. Who thinks everything is all cut and dried and in the textbooks, well we find that this is not true. This business about the earths heat is hotly contested. And there is even a theory of essentially a nuclear reactor in the centre of the planet.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=58687
Its good that the Doctor is opening up this problem to a more three-dimensional approach.
You get so sick of ideologues clinging dogmatically to flat earth black-body make-believe-science.
It would be one thing to have a stupid oversimplified model if you could come up with the empirical evidence for it. There is a logic to how things are progressing here. 3 threads and no evidence. So its being opened up to other ideas. Its no use being shirty about it. If you don’t have the empirical backup than we need to bring more ideas into the problem.
If people don’t believe that the planet itself is important consider the case of the thermal heat maximum of 55 million years ago:
“With a painstaking reconstruction, Nunes and Norris found that the world’s ocean current system did a U-turn during the PETM — and then, ultimately, reversed itself.
Before the PETM, deep water upwelled in the southern hemisphere; over about 40,000 years, the source of this upwelling shifted to the northern hemisphere; it took another 100,000 years before recovering completely.”
So you’ve got 40,000 years of upwelling from the deep oceans prior to the 100,000 year thermal maximum.
For me this directly implicates a strata-and-heat budgets approach. A strata deeper than the oceans has accumulated a great deal of energy. It builds up and is released. It takes 140,000 years to release it all. There will be a lot of volcanic activity that is a symptom and not a cause of the heat maximum.
And the giveaway to this conclusion is surely the ocean currents changing so as to have the extraordinary occurrence of the currents being generated off the bottom of the oceans.
And really when you think about it how could it be otherwise?
Like thousands of kilometres of material jam-packed with joules and supposedly it has no part to play.
Prior to this heat maximum we see perhaps as much as 200 million years of a very open continental system that would allow ease of circulation. My contention is that this would lead to very warm oceans than warm deep oceans and it would be quite hard for the heat generated in the Earth to be released to the deep oceans, the atmosphere and subsequently into space.
So you would get this heat buildup that finally get large enough to be released in this fashion and the process taking 140 000 years.
And we have an analogue to this on Venus. Where it is held that many millions of years ago the entire surface of that planet subducted and was replaced with a new surface. Which sounds like there was some sort of massive heat buildup that was finally released in an extraordinary way.
As well as this we see that for all of the next 55 million years we have had progressing cooling. Sure its up and down. But there is a definite direction. If you averaged it out in blocks of 5 million years than you would see each 5 million year block is probably colder than the last. Now this to me implies that the deeper earth has a role to play. That we cannot look at it as if its just a blackbody, noon all the time, flat, water vapour averaged out, and the colour-of-gas the only important thing.
The 55 million years of cooling defying the gradual buildup in the activity of the sun.
Gordon, the radioactivity inside the earth generates about 4 * 10 13 W. That’s less than the amount of sunlight striking the earth in one millisecond. However, the earth is also an excellent insulator, so that it can maintain a very high thermal gradient. To demonstrate just how good an insulator the earth is, go outside on a cold, frozen day and dig down into the earth. The surface is frozen, but you’ll get below the frozen layer and into wet soil in just a few centimeters (unless you live in the far north).
I saw some calculations for the amount of heat generated by internal tidal friction and the net amount of heat generated by this means is much less than the amount of heat generated by radioactivity.
You don’t know that Crawford.
discussing text book stuff as if it was controversial is simply stupid and misleading.
“To demonstrate just how good an insulator the earth is, go outside on a cold, frozen day and dig down into the earth.”
Or ponder permafrost …
Not only does the heat from the atmosphere fail to penetrate to melt it, but neither does the heat from the earth’s interior …
You guys are aware of the great dispute between Darwin and Lord Kelvin on the age of the Earth, yes? And you know how Ernest Rutherford resolved it, with work for which he won the Nobel in 1908, yes?
But…the earth is growing isn’t it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory
Jennifer – “It is perhaps worth remembering this is a blog, not a text book. ”
And yes it is however you have been touting yourself as an authority on climate change. This puts your blog into an entirely different light. If you want to be considered a scientific source then you must conduct yourself in a scientific manner with all the restrictions that that implies.
If you want to be a free thinker then please stop making scientific statements to the press. BTW where are all the speculative and free thinking articles on biology or are you afraid of the ridicule in your own area of specialty.
“This business about the earths heat is hotly contested.”
Ha ha, good one Graeme, but not half as amusing as everything else you’ve said.
For everyone else out there who might actually be interested in learning something, please see the new thread that Jennifer will hopefully post shortly.
As one who has spent more than two decades being paid very good money to detect bull$hit, it must be said that the response of Duffett is the clearest signal yet that this is an issue that needs more investigation. Like a soon to be cornered fraud, Duffett seems to think that all he has to do is apply a bit of condescention and the inquiry will go away. But those of us in the business of fraud detection know that some of the silliest and simplest of questions can uncover the most relevant information.
The issue of sub-oceanic volcanic vents having a role in melting of the west antarctic ice sheets is hardly “the level of the introduction to second-year geophysics”.
And so what if it were? Is this turkey suggesting that there is some sort of hierarchy of relevant fact? Where the facts and processes dealt with in the subject matter of 3rd year geophysics are more relevant to the facts and processes dealt with in 2nd year?
Forgive me, but I was under the impression that knowledge was cumulative. It had never dawned on me that knowledge gained at a later part of an inquiry automatically negated knowledge gained earlier. Unless, of course, you were investigating the official history of the USSR or the “science of the WWF or Greenpimp.
Don’t apologise to anyone, Gordon. Graeme Bird has highlighted how this issue can have a major bearing on climate variation. And the fact that geothermal influences may have only a minor impact in aggregate does not negate the potential for major specific impacts in time and location that can have global consequences.
It is certainly a much shorter “bow” to draw than some of the AGW bollocks, like atlantic conveyor collapse and AGW inspired ice age, or the notion that 2.5 million Gt of Greenland ice sheet will get a dose of cabin fever and suddenly slide sideways, per chance to Bermuda.
Ender is taking time out from his usual gig at Deltoid, to show concern for this blog. That’s quite touching.
“or the notion that 2.5 million Gt of Greenland ice sheet will get a dose of cabin fever and suddenly slide sideways, per chance to Bermuda.”
There are lots of studies of this; the current measurements indicate a mass loss in the Greenland ice on the order of 100 GT yr**-1
HA HA HA! This is the greatest blog on EARTH! WOW.
What a monumentally stupid post. Does the heat from the seun affect the Earth’s core. Wow… This is primary school stuff.
But seriously, yes it is mostly from radioactive decay. And I assume you have all heard of volcanoes. Yeah, well it seems that they provide an outlet for all the nasty heat inside the Earth… Not a substantial contributor of heat for the atmosphere, however.
Jennifer why don’t you post on Evolution. Why don’t you post on something intelligent.
Crawford: “the current measurements indicate a mass loss in the Greenland ice on the order of 100 GT yr**-1”
Gee wiz! Now lets see then, 2,500,000Gt/100Gt pa leaves us 25,000 years before it is all gone or 95% of it still there at the dawn of the next millenium.
Assuming, of course, that none of the recorded mass loss is due to cyclical influences which could just as easily reverse themselves over the next 30 to 200 years.
And even the IPCC isn’t stupid enough to suggest that CO2 forcing is any more than 50% of recorded temperature rises.
So Crawford might like to explain how the presence of 50Gt of short term annual flux can be used as evidence supporting Greenland Ice mass accidentally $hiting itself? And spare us the bull$hit links to the so-called “research” because it has already been flogged ad nauseum here before and been proven wanting.
“So Crawford might like to explain how the presence of 50Gt of short term annual flux can be used as evidence supporting Greenland Ice mass accidentally $hiting itself?”
It doesn’t. I didn’t say it did. You were engaging in speculation, and I presented specific numbers. The fact that those numbers dispel the notion that the Greenland ice will all melt soon is not my concern. I’m here to present the science, regardless of its political implications. However, I will point out that your speculation that the process could reverse is not well-supported by evidence. The concern here is that the process will accelerate, not reverse. Indeed, the evidence already shows some acceleration. Remember too that the melting of all the ice in Greenland would truly be catastrophic. We don’t need to melt all the ice to cause significant problems; a small percentage would be sufficient to inflict damages in the billions to trillions of dollars.
One source of the heat might be explicable if the earth’s rotation is powered by a homopolar, or Farday, motor. The electrical driving currents have been measured at the earth’s poles at millions of amperes.
These currents are derived not only from the sun but also the solar system and the galaxy.
One thing radioactive decay cannot do is to surge in to increased thermal activity, according to mainstream paradigms.
Actually Louis you may find that it is Faerie Fire. The energy produced is equivalent to 8 suns, and it can surge like radioactivity can’t. IN fact unbeknownst to you all the Earth’s molten core actually spins perpendicular to the motion of the galaxy. This creates an enormous torsion motor – it’s the power of the galaxy that drives AGW. Of course, this is true because it rejects the mainstream paradigm. As Baudrillard said “All paradigms are stupid, especially mainstream ones”.
This does conflict with the solid inner core of course. But that is a mere misrepresentation by Communist Facist leftists.
In the spirit of molten cores I did a google.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May07/margot.mercury.html
Mercury has molten core, Cornell researcher shows.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11782-molten-core-may-explain-mercurys-magnetic-field.html
Same story but with a little more detail, and a nice graphic;
http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11782/dn11782-1_600.jpg
Pound for pound Mercury has way more metal then Earth, and yet it’s magnetic field is a hundred times weaker.
Maybe it’s the spin rate that’s the problem.
Something closer to home that I found kind of interesting, the Yellowstone hotspot has moved progressively East over the eons. To me this means that the core spins faster then the crust, and in the same general direction. But I’m going by one data point. What say you geologists in the audience?
NT
How long have you had this foot-in-mouth problem?
It’s part of the physics of the plasma universe theories which adds the enormous power of electricty to that of gravity to explain the cosmos.
James
I can’t really say much at all – we have little to no data for the earth at this depth – so it’s all speculation.
Things start to become explicable if you ignore the standard geological timescale, but doing that makes you a target as a quasi-creationist, so I prefer not to comment.
I have already received one idiotic response – so little to tip these AGW types into shrilling cognitive dissonance.
James,
The Earth has a solid inner core, surrounded by a liquid outer core. But around that is the Mantle, which isn’t really “liquid” is more “plastic” and above that is the crust. The crust is moved by slow convection in the mantle, and so it is the crust moving over the hotspot rather than the hotspot moving beneath the crust. If you look at the hotspot beneath Hawaii for example you can see a chain of seamounts running northwest that then do a sudden northward turn, probably due to a change in plate movement.
For Yellowstone, the motion of the North American was westward (hence the apparent eastward movement of the hotspot) until recently. There was a spreading ridge in the ocean to the west of the US, but the mid-Atlantic ridge pushed the US westwards over the top of it, forming the Basin and Range Province.
The spin of the inner or outer core is not something I know anything particular about. However the Mantle would prevent the outer core directly affecting the Crust through any ‘spin’ mechanism.
Jennifer posted…”Socratic Irony: A pose of ignorance assumed in order to entice others into making statements that can then be challenged”.
If that is a reference to me, I take it with good humour. I don’t take myself seriously, but I am a student of science and the question I posed about heat generated from the Earth’s interior was one that struck me out of the blue. I’m not really clever enough…or should I see deceitful enough… 🙂 to sucker anyone in on this subject. Thanks for posting my comment Jennifer, as the replies have been thought provoking and unexpected.
I started Googling about the Earth’s internal heat engine and my findings are uncovering rather surprising facts. Most articles I have read agree that the internal heat is the product of radioactivity, but what I did not expect is that humans could not survive in the heat 30,000 feet below the surface. Also, there are many admissions that no one really knows what’s going on down there, except maybe old Mephistopheles.
This article was interesting, by an MIT researcher:
http://atlanticgeothermal.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-technique-reveals-earths-internal.html
Note the movie at the top right. The guy is talking about geothermal tunnels that could provide electricity equivalent to the current output of the Hoover Dam, a major US hydroelectric project.
On page 2 of the article is this interesting statement:
“No one has ever seen the turbulently swirling liquid iron of the outer core meeting the silicate rock of the mantle–10 times as far below ground as the International Space Station is above–but the cross-disciplinary study led the researchers to estimate the temperature there is a white-hot 3,700 degrees Celsius”.
I only took a geology course that was a second year equivalent, as Mark Duffett pointed out while asking the point of my question. I have always been perplexed by how such an insignificant amount of anthropogenic CO2 could cause the warming predicted by some models. I subscribe to the theory that CO2 warming is a convenient explanation because nothing else ‘seems’ apparent, even though I tend to disagree with that assessment.
I was replying to another post, with the thought of blackbody radiators in mind, and realizing that the greenhouse effect behaves nothing like a real greenhouse and that the blanket analogy was pretty tacky. It suddenly popped into my mind that the Earth did generate some of its own heat, and I wondered how much that was and how significant it might be. It was just a question.
When I took the geology course, I remember reference to the Mid-Atlantic Rift, a large valley that runs down the North Atlantic Ocean. It is supposedly a source of plate tectonic motion and rife with volcanic activity. I remember a small North Atlantic island being formed from molten lava in that vicinity.
I have visited Rotorua in New Zealand and marveled at the hot water bubbling out of the ground. Suppose that is going on under the oceans and is undetectable because of the huge sink presented by the oceans?
There was another movie about exploration in the deepest part of the ocean, some 7 or 8 miles deep. There was some wild marine life down there, that was unexpected, but the thing I found intriguing, was a vent of hot water pouring into the ocean at that depth. That hot water was sustaining life at a depth of more than 7 miles.
Plate tectonic theory is based on subduction zones where the surface is dragged into the mantle, which supposedly has a plastic consistency. That apparently takes place under tremendous pressure and high temperatures. The heat that produces the molten rock that spews from volcanos comes from somewhere.
Either the Thermodynamic Laws don’t apply deep in the Earth, as Newton’s Laws don’t apply at an atomic level, or that heat in the Earth’s interior must reach the surface to an extent. If it does, it kind of throws the Earth’s heat budget for a loop, I would think.
I’m sure the first arguement I would get is that the Sun’s radiation has been measured. That may be true, but has greenhouse warming been measured and accounted for…exactly? In other words, was there a base temperature higher than the blackbody equivalent? According to Roy Spencer, radiative imbalance has only been calculated theoretically since even satellite telemetry is not sensistive enough to measure it directly.
Gordon, rather than posing hypothetical questions with the subtext that this is something that needs to be explored in case it affects AGW, why don’t you actually research it first.
“Either the Thermodynamic Laws don’t apply deep in the Earth, as Newton’s Laws don’t apply at an atomic level, or that heat in the Earth’s interior must reach the surface to an extent. If it does, it kind of throws the Earth’s heat budget for a loop, I would think.” This is pointless conjecture, as obviously the Thermodynamic Laws apply, and we know that the heat reaches the surface via volcanoes.
With respect to the Earth’s internal heat, yes volcanoes are the obvious outlet. As well as the movement of the Plates. BUT the recent increase in global temps can’t be attributed to volcanoes, because volcanic activity and plate tectonics haven’t increased in the last 30 years… or even the last few thousand years…
Again rather than posing a question you don’t know anything about and suggest that this hasn’t been accounted for why don’t you research it yourself?
NT
What about the spreading ridges? Those are not volcanoes.
And plate tectonics haven’t increased in the last 30 years – just how does plate tectonics wax and wane then, if at all.
Maybe there is a law somewhere like: “level of offence taken is inversely proportional to knowledge of subject” 🙂
NT
“Jennifer why don’t you post on Evolution. Why don’t
you post on something intelligent.”
And lose you and your mates to the blog?
Nah, better keep it to your level of understanding!
Louis,
I was including the spreading ridges in the ‘movement of tectonic plates’.
Ha ha Marcus, hilarious to think that this blog has any ‘level of understanding’ – maybe you should read Jen’s post on “Socratic Irony”… That post reveals all you need to understand the intelligence of debate on this blog.
This blog has become the highlight of my day – it’s hilarious!
NT said…”BUT the recent increase in global temps can’t be attributed to volcanoes…”
I did not imply that. I’m talking about the warming attributed to global warming over what would be expected if the Earth was a pure blackbody radiator. How do we know how much warming is attributable to water vapour and CO2, and how do we know internal sources don’t contribute?
As I said, Spencer pointed out that the amount of radiative imbalance is purely theoretical. Also, we’re talking about a very minimal warming of 0.6 C over a century, where surface measurements are questionable. Satellite measurements are much more accurate and cover 95% of the Earth, yet they don’t show that kind of warming. Is it possible we missed something along the way?
We were measuring the air temperature a few feet above the ground. That instrumentation was not intended for global warming data, it was intended for local weather prediction. AGW theory claims that instrumentation is measuring black body radiation from the surface. How do we know some of it wasn’t coming from inside the Earth?
I don’t know what to think at this point, especially considering the Spencer/Christy data shows a level trend over 10 years for warming. I think the system (Earth) is just too big and too complex to be making any assumptions about it given the low and uncertain amount of warming.
Gordon… Wow, the hilarity continues…
You say you don’t imply it, then go straight and imply it.
This post was about the contribution of the Earth’s interior heat to global temps, yes? The only way interior heat gets out is via volcanoes and mid ocean ridges yes?
Global temps have increased recently – and there is no recorded increase in volcanic activity nor in seismic activity or mid ocean ridge activity. How can you say this: “How do we know some of it wasn’t coming from inside the Earth?” with a straight face?
How do we know some isn’t coming from the moon?
How do we know some isn’t being beamed in by aliens?
It’s a ludicrous argument.
And this is just as funny:
“AGW theory claims that instrumentation is measuring black body radiation from the surface. ”
AGW theory doesn’t claim that. You just made that up because it sounded technical.
Gordon Robertson, the socratic irony comment this morning was not directed specifically at you… but perhaps at all of us who are struggling with these complex issues. and thanks for not being cross with me for just grabbing your comment which did interest me and posting it as a new thread.
Mark Duffet, thanks for sending in a contribution which I will post next. the links are especially good.
NT
First, try
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecmech.html
for Plate Tectonics 101
Then re-read this from one of your posts:
“With respect to the Earth’s internal heat, yes volcanoes are the obvious outlet”
As Louis pointed out, the mid-ocean ridges are also a major and constant conduit for heat loss. Perhaps you should post after you think.
Then:
“BUT the recent increase in global temps can’t be attributed to volcanoes”
No geologist is suggesting this. But are you suggesting the plateaued temperatures from the last decade are due to increasing CO2 levels ?
ANSWER the question. No straw men, no puerile sarcasm … just answer the question.
Yes.
Oh, hang on… Was your question Socratic Irony?
“This post was about the contribution of the Earth’s interior heat to global temps, yes? The only way interior heat gets out is via volcanoes and mid ocean ridges yes?”
No thats not right. It can conduct its way up and like trying to get your kettle to simmer evenly (which is a hard gig) it ought not be assumed that its going to come up evenly. Rather it will come up in waves and oscillations. Like the suns energy making its way to the surface of the sun. No reason to think that it would be uniform and stable all the time. In fact it would be quite bizzare if it were uniform.
Its far more likely that there will be heat buildups and releases…. waves of thermal energy coming up via the ocean floor.
Yes, Graeme I find your analysis on Mid-Ocean Ridges very compelling… Waves of thermal energy, probably driven by coriolis forces acting on a plastic mantle. These waves are probably the source of oceanic and Kelvin waves. IN fact if you look at the AMO you will probably see a psuedo-semi-periodic oscillation not uncommon to the thermal energy waves you describe. Coincidence? I think not.
Snide abounds; at one level AGW is the revenge of the nerds; NT, there is another way for Earth’s interior heat to be expressed at the surface. Craig O’Neill said this in a recent paper in Australasian Science, vol 29, no 3 April 2008;
“However, it is not only the plate that descends into the mantle. Water, absorbed into the oceanic crust as hydrous minerals, follows the plate into the mantle. Similarly, dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans can precipitate to form calcite, which is then deposited on the plate and likewise recycled into the mantle.
Thus plate tectonics not only acts as a source of atmospheric greenhouse gases and water, it also acts as a sink to remove these substances back out of the atmosphere and oceans. If you do the sums, Earth’s oceans should have been processed through the mantle no less than seven times throughout the planet’s history.
This behaviour is crucial, as it means that plate tectonics act as an essential regulator of atmospheric compositions, and thus as a thermostat for the planet’s temperatures through time. On a planet without this regulation, like Venus, volcanic greenhouse gases can build up to dangerous, scorching levels.”
This gives a new complexion to periodic upwellings and cessations of same with respect to atmospheric temperature; while the cycles may be geologic that process need not be regular with abrubt consequences for the atmosphere.
On another tack, I’m fed up with the pomposity of the newly self-appointed high priests of the religion of AGW demanding not only subservience but mute subjagation as well; so ender, sod and NT pull your heads in and take a leaf out of dhogaza’s book; if even a Deltoid thug like him can behave himself and raise an interesting point, so can you guys.
Right. Thank you very much. Much better. The Kelvin waves that you speak of than ought to have been predictable inductively and searched for. Perhaps they were stumbled upon.
Now another point would be that these sort of bursts of energy ought to come in different wavelengths just like with the sun. For example a period of two solar cycles can be thought of as a wave-length as it were. So while we may detect these Kelvin waves that you are talking about, other types of energy buildups and releases from the deep earth may be harder to get a handle on.
Sorry Cohenite. You’ll find my head soundly pulled in…
Interesting that your appealing to the greenhouse effect as a mechanism for the earth’s mantle (note not the core) to help moderate the Earth’s near surface temperature. Louis did actually hit on something with his “surge Tectonics” – although I don’t know if that is actually the name for it – but there is a link between rates of tectonic activity and CO2 levels (and hence climate)
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Rea_etal_90.pdf
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/183
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v386/n6627/abs/386788a0.html
A link between CO2 and tectonics hey?
Well one doesn’t want to rubbish even the most oddball ideas.
Exactly Graeme… Did you google or Wiki Kelvin Waves? You will read about them if you read about El Nino.
Did you read about Thorium and Uranium and Potassium?
You should, there’s plenty of information about them. Perhaps Graeme the reason they focus on those three is because they are available in the crust and Mantle in enormous quantities. Perhaps all the other isotopes are so few and far between that they are largely irrelevant.
And yes there is a very strong link between CO2 and tectonics. However this operates on a very long cycle and is too slow, generally, for us to notice. The only way we would is if there was a Deccan Traps or Siberian Traps type event.
(Cohenite I tried… If this ends in ridicule… )
I have read many discussions of thermal balance in the arguments in this blog, and others. Almost all of these discussions focus on heat transfer in the atmosphere related to insolation. Indeed, Kininmonth’s thread a few days ago is in the same theme.
But only about 10% of the earth’s heat budget comes from insolation. The remaining 90% comes from two primary intenal sources: the first is natural radioactive decay, and the second from a phenomenon known as gravitational differentiation, but it has other names as well.
To my mind, much of the misunderstanding about heat flow in planet earth arises from the fact that almost all diagrams representing heat flow, and related discussions, are not drawn to scale.
Once the earth is drawn to scale, all is put into perspective.
I carry a piece of string in my back pocket, ready for any potential audience. The string is 2 metres long. In the middle is knot.
I put one end of the string under my toe, and make an arc at the end of the string, preferably on a whiteboard. I make another arc at the one metre knot.
The radius of the earth is close to 6 million metres. So the outer curve represents the surface of the earth at a scale of 1:3,000,000. The radius of the solid core of the earth is almost exactly 3,000 kilometers, so the inner curve accurately represents the curvature of the core at scale 1:3,000,000. The crust of the earth is about 30km thick. At scale 1:3,000,000, this is 1 cm. So I draw a curve inside the outer curve, 1 cm inside it. The earth’s atmosphere is very thin at 10km. At scale, this is 3mm. So I draw a blue arc with a marker pen about 3mm wide outside the outer curve. The core is solid. The crust is not solid, it is plastic. The region between the core and crust is known as the mantle, and is fluid. It churns, much like a lava lamp, and the temperature at teh underside of the crust changes as hot magma floats to the top, and cooled magma sinks toward the core. I do not know what this variation in temperature is over time, but could well be the major cause of long term variations in the earth’s temperature at the surface.
I then enter the temperatures, in degK. At the centre of mass, temperature is about 5,000oK, at the underside of the crust, about 1400oK, at the surface of the earth, about 287oK, in outer space, 0oK. We can then see the direction and magnitude of massive heat flow. The sun’s effect is minor, the earth is its own heat generator. Kininmonth has ignored this component of heat transfer, and needs to revisit his calculations. Similarly, discussions of heat transfer have almost all ignored transfer between the mantle and the deep oceans, where the thickness of the crust is only about 6km, that is, about 2mm at scale.
The volume of a sphere is pi*r3, hence at scale, the volume of the earth is 8pi. The volume of the core is pi. Hence 7/8ths of the mass of planet earth is fluid, with a thin scum floating on top. The earth is thus a fluid sphere, orbiting through space. The flattening of the earth is represented by f, which is close to 1/273. To the eye, the earth is a sphere. To a geodesist, the earth is an oblate spheroid.
The very thin blue bit, is the world that we know it. We focus on it, and refer to it a “the earth”. But it is negligible compared with the actual size of the planet. It is insignificant. Anyone who says we are destroying planet earth is ignorant.
I suggest that you actually draw the earth in this way, to accurate scale. It would be a useful exercise at the annual conference to do this, but do it at the beginning, so that the audience can put the discussions into perspective.
Pirate Pete
Suddenly we are getting decent posts from NT?
Just goes to show. Bully-boy behaviour in favour of tendentious support of the science-fraud effectively halves the IQ of the perp.
Once they drop this silliness they can come over as reasonable.
But for how long?
Cohenite, what can I do?
I can either mock them and attempt to demonstrate their stupidity (for which you justly chasten me) or I can listen to their interminable droning and ‘making stuff up’ kind of science.
I guess you and I can have a rapport, but for Graeme and Louis (and PiratePete above) this is not a serious debate, it’s a shouting match or a making stuff up match. They’re not interesting in science they want to dominate a political debate.
Cohenite, tell me do you believe what Graeme, Louis, or PiratePete actually write?
NT; interesting papers; my take is;
The Rea et al paper notes the Paleocene-Eocene boundary event as being responsible for, amongst other climatic upheavals, “a marked lightening of oceanic C13 values.”
The Mackenzie and Piggot paper provides a perspective on sea levels and CO2 levels, but seems to imply that tectonic activity raised and lowered the sea level with non-precedent and therefore non-causal levels of CO2.
The Ramstein et al paper confirms, IMO, geomorphology and landmass and ocean spatial distribution play a dominant part in climate and reinforces the notion that the ‘refridgerater’ effect of the poles is a more important cause in cooling than Arrhenius’s conjecture.
I have already given you Zahnie and Sleep’s paper on tectonics, recycling and CO2’s inverse relationship to H2O depleted atmospheric temperature, but here it is again;
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231
It’s enough to make you a closet sceptic.
Yes Cohenite, inetresting take.
However they are all using the greenhouse effect, yes? The release of CO2 means that the Earth becomes warmer. You have to remember that in the Paleocene and for most of the Phanerozoic there were no ice caps at the poles. So sea level changes in those times were not driven by ice melting.
Paleoclimate models do incorporate continental reconstructions too. The closing of the Isthmus of Panama went a long way to aiding our current ice age.
Zahnie and Sleep’s paper on tectonics is for the Archean, and they still call CO2 a greenhouse gas. Not sure what your point is about that.
You never mentioned if you believed Graeme, Louis or PiratePete…
“I can either mock them and attempt to demonstrate their stupidity…”
Mate you are not dealing with the full deck. Always remember that its you that are the idiot that has fallen for this science fraud.
And if you don’t think that lets have the evidence right now!!
What a fool you are. You couldn’t keep up any sort of holiday from idiocy for long.
So right now. Right now lets have your evidence. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. Evidence for the idea that a little bit of human-induced warming is a bad thing in a brutal and pulverising ice age.
Graeme, why do they focus on Potassium, Thorium and Uranium?
You were confused earlier – remember? Did you manage to work it out?
Lets make the prediction right here that this fraud isn’t going to make good with the evidence for the pertinent controversy.
I
Lets have that you preening science-fraud. What are you? Some sort of science-grant whore?
Make good with the evidence. Or else just accept that it is you that are the idiotic one.
And stop misrepresenting me on the Thorium business. I’ve gone over it a number of times and all that you are proving is that you are too much of an anti-science moron to understand the key point here.
Finding one sort of energy generation doesn’t mean you have all forms of energy generation sewn up. Got that point yet you idiot?
Now get busy with the evidence. And you’ll make 1000 dollars as well as redeem yourself from your status as a fraud.
Fraud? what fraud?
Clearly we would be doing well if we could relieve the taxpayer of NT’s upkeep. Doesn’t even understand the key point, doesn’t feel he needs to make good with evidence for the fraud he is supporting, and is wholly destructive, even though he briefly showed that he doesn’t need to be.
One wonders who he really is. All we know is that he is someone who ought to be sacked.
See Cohenite? He rambles… On a different post he focussed on the observation of Potassium, Thorium and Uranium in determining how much energy is released from radioactive decay in the Earth. He seemed to think it was dumb of them to focus on those three…
Can you explain to him why they do that. He won;t read about it himself nor believe what I say.
Good night all!
Lets have that evidence NT.
No no you are lying NT. Thats just a total lie. You are filth. You are a fraud. You stand fully against the ethic of science. You ought to be sacked. You have no business being in the job you are in.
Lets go over it again:
It is unscientific to find ONE energy source and assume it is the ONLY energy source. I’ve gone over this a number of times and you still are saddling me with your misrepresentation.
Now lets have that evidence.
Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming. Or for the proposition that a little bit of human-induced warming is a BAD THING during a brutal and pulverising ice age.
NT; the divide and conquer approach is beneath you; this issue inevitably leads back to the allegeded CO2/temp causality; the Berner graph puts paid to that;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
The level of sea level and contemperaneous ice extent may be worthwhile being looked at as proxies for the CO2 temp link; here is Monash’s historical sea level graph;
http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
And here is paper which concludes that CO2 levels were at historically low levels during the period 650,000-750,000 ybp;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
Try and match the sea levels with the ice extents and CO2 levels and wonder how the Luthi paper can conclude that there is a “strong coupling between CO2 and Antarctic temperature” and ignore the other evidence.
Pirate Pete.
Just a couple of questions.
1) What is the mean geothermal flux at the surface of the Earth’s crust (watts per square meter)?
2) What is the mean solar radiant flux onto the planet (watts per square meter)?
Following on from this, as Barton Paul Levenson likes to ask, divide the first number by the second. Discuss.
And moving on:
“The very thin blue bit, is the world that we know it. We focus on it, and refer to it a “the earth”. But it is negligible compared with the actual size of the planet. It is insignificant. Anyone who says we are destroying planet earth is ignorant.”
No-one is saying that we are literally destroying the planet. Fortunately for the world, we do not yet have ready access to a spare Lexx.
However, if we refer to the thin scum of crust, and especially to the few tens of kilometres of atmosphere and lithosphere that are the substrate for the biosphere, then the ‘size’ of the planet is much reduced. After all, this is the only part of the planet that we have ready access to aside from an insignificant amout of volcanic and vent production, and this is EXACTLY why we focus on it.
Exactly as demonstrated by your piece of string and whiteboard.
The size of the rest of the planet, whilst quantitatively significant in absolute terms, is completely irrelevant. It might as well be a completely separate planet when it comes to what we do on the surface, and unless we become magma demons or similar, what we do to the thin membrane of biosphere at the surface is all that matters. To use your own words “[the surface/biosphere] is negligible compared with the actual size of the planet. It is insignificant.”
Our actions condensed into this insigificant volume are having more that an insignificant effect.
Twain would be impressed with your… statistics.
This discussion has lost coherence, but I would like to add two observations. First, I’d like to compliment Gordon for his thoughts and questions. Gordon has not made up his mind and is still asking questions — which is how we learn. I don’t see many other people asking questions — which implies that either they already know everything or they don’t realize how little they know.
Gordon raises a question regarding the heat flux coming from inside the earth. PiratePete expands upon this question with some useful information. However, Pirate Pete does not have the crucial information to hand — namely the actual heat flux (how many watts per square meter are reaching the earth’s surface). I poked around the Internet, and found one reference to a total heat flux of 10 TW from the core to the mantle. We should add in some more for the mantle’s heat production; let’s be generous and say that the total internal heat production of the earth is 100 TW. That’s 10**14 Watts for the whole planet. Sunlight falling on the earth amounts to about 10**17 Watts. Thus, the contribution to earth’s surface temperature from internal heat generation is about 0.1% as large as the contribution from the sun. And there you have your answer, Gordon. Answers come only to those who ask questions.
Pirate Pete – Lance Endersbee described it as the earth being an egg and the crust being 1/3rd the thickness of the shell and the bottom of the oceans being 1/15th.
Cohenite, it’s not divide and conquer. It’s your biased treatment of info on this blog! You complain that I am not contributing, but you’re happy to let Louis and Graeme spout garbage… Speaks volumes mate. It shows that you are not actually fair minded. Nor particular interested in a science debate.
Now you cannot link to a blog and expect me to accept that. That is beneath you.
Now why have you tried to link a paper written in Nature with a sea level graph from Monash? Also that paper is written in 2007, when was the Monash graph drawn?
AGAIN. All these studies work from the premis of a greenhouse effect. Why on Earth would you try and use them as an example of non-greenhouse?
I’m still pretty interested in the different spin character between the core and the crust.
NT brought up the Hawaii chain as an example to go along with Yellowstone.
So that’s two data points of a long term permanent hotspot features moving progressively to the East just a touch faster then the Earth spins.
I wonder if there is correlation (course adjustment) between those two, and the meandering magnetic poles?
James, these motions are generally held to be explained by plate tectonics, and plate motions are believed to be driven by currents in the mantle. So far as I know, no causal relationship between plate tectonics and the earth’s magnetic field has been established.
Has any one thought of the heat flux from the 6 billion human bodies on the planet.
Surely this might explain AGW!
I feel very confident that there is an extremely good correlation between human population and rising temps.
I think my theory would sit nicely with the contributions from Graham and Alan.
“Has any one thought of the heat flux from the 6 billion human bodies on the planet.”
Even worse: the heat flux from videogames! THEY’RE the cause of all our troubles! All those sweating kids and their power-guzzling computers! 😉
James Mayeau.
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Hotspots.html
James you need to consider the mantle, which lies between the core and the crust. Any affects the core has will be on the mantle, not the crust.
Actually Michael, you could be right… I doubt anyone has considered the effects of Human heat… Yes! That’s it!
Yes, and being hot, Paris would have a bigger emmissivity than the rest of us; she could in fact be a black body!
NT; the blog, so-called, is a graph based on Berner’s papers including this one;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2310
Now, what about the ice, sea level and CO2 mix?
As to Louis and Graeme; I don’t know why you think I have any influence over these free spirits; they go wither they will, and whence from where they willed.
NT said…”This post was about the contribution of the Earth’s interior heat to global temps, yes? The only way interior heat gets out is via volcanoes and mid ocean ridges yes”?
I’m not implying anything, I’m asking questions. I remember a lab we did in university to demonstrate heat flow. We used several materials, a steel rod and a piece of concrete come to mind. We had to measure the amount of heat flowing through materials like that. If heat can flow through concrete, and a level of the Earth’s interior is above 3000 C, where does that heat go? That’s what I’m asking.
You claim that only vents for that heat are volcanoes and mid-ocean ridges, but the laws of thermodynamics claim heat flows from hotter to colder areas. The materials it flows through have different coefficients of heat transfer, so theoretically heat should flow through all materials and not be restricted to volcanos and subduction zones.
Volcanos usually blow when ground water gets into magma chambers, steam build up, and literally blows the tops off mountains, or pokes holes in their sides. At Krakatoa, an initial puncture on the side of the mountain near sea level allowed sea water into the magma chamber, then it really blew. The question is, how does the magma get there? Where does that heat come from that is so intense it melts rocks like granite?
With respect to my statement that “AGW theory claims that instrumentation is measuring black body radiation from the surface” I should have said greenhouse theory instead of AGW theory. There…you got me.
If you think about it, the surface stations are little boxes with vents designed to keep the direct sunlight off the thermometers inside the boxes. The ambient air surrounding the boxes must be warmed by the kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules. I think there’s so much room for error in the measurements, and not nearly enough surface stations to give meaningful global averages.
I notice that your replies to me are cherry picked. You never try to answer the more complex inferences I make. I have tried to point out that satellites cover 95% of the Earth and are very accurate. Why do they show atmospheric temperatures that are 1/3 of surface temperatures when AGW theory claims the atmospheric temps should be significantly warmer than the surface?
You don’t suppose the satellite atmospheric temps may be the correct amount of warming, do you?
Cohenite, I asked if you agreed with them, not of you can control them. But you are too scared to say you disagree (and I know you do) because you know they will lambast you for it, which is cowardice. Have the courage to stand up for your convictions.
You can’t compare sea ice, and sea level and CO2 for time periods that didn’t have polar ice caps. Why are you trying to? Polar ice caps are very rare beasties and don’t happen very often in the Earth’s history.
“Our reconstruction indicates that CO2 remained between 300 and 450 parts per million by volume for these intervals with the exception of a single high estimate near the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. These results suggest that factors in addition to CO2 are required to explain these past intervals of global warmth.”
See, he is using the greenhouse effect to determine what the temp would have been due to CO2, finds that it’s greater and says that factors IN ADDITION TO CO2 are required.
Again, you appeal to a paper that relies on the Greenhouse Effect.
And the graph that you refer too (the Berner one) is fine, you need to also consider the difference in Solar activity. The Sun is stronger now (generally, ignoring the solar cycle) than at any time in the Earth’s history.
No climate model assumes CO2 is the only driver of climate. It is a driver, and it is one driver that has changed substantially in the last 100 years. Solar Luminosity is the same, the continental arrangement is the same…
NT; the 2 papers I was referring to were this one in respect of recent geological history when there were ice-caps;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
And this one from the ancient Earth when the snowball, approximately, is bandied about;
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/199/1/231
“but you’re happy to let Louis and Graeme spout garbage… Speaks volumes mate. ”
Your fingers are typing cheques that your brain cannot cash NT you idiot. Back up these wild claims of yours. Imagine that. Someone so stupid to have fallen for this racket talking this way.
“Thus, the contribution to earth’s surface temperature from internal heat generation is about 0.1% as large as the contribution from the sun. And there you have your answer, Gordon. Answers come only to those who ask questions.”
This is by no means the eternal way of things. The fact that there was more volcanic activity in the time of the dinosaurs suggests heat buildup. Be quits with the watts per square metre way of thinking. It robs you of what feeble perspective you may be capable of.
Gordon, you’re absolutely right that there is thermal transfer by means of conduction. Heat is slowly seeping up to the surface and providing some heating effect. However, soil and rock are very poor conductors of heat, as you learned when you tested concrete. And when heat has to travel through hundreds of thousands of meters of such materials, it moves very slowly indeed. And in fact, as I explained earlier, the end result is a heat flux of about 10**14 watts. That’s a lot of heat — as much as is generated by 100,000 electrical power plants. But it’s still only 0.1% of the heat coming from the sun, and so is insignificant as a contributor to global temperatures.
There seems to be this meme out there that the planet itself has only permission to do one of two things. The planet, meaning everything below the ocean floor, apparently is only allowed to cool down from its original molten position. Or its allowed to expend its energy at exactly the same rate as this energy is being produced.
The third option of the earth heating up is apparently Verbotten. Now I would want to challenge this outright. I’m not talking about today. But in other times in earth history. If this is the assumption why is this the assumption? The earth itself surely will have cooled, then sometimes warmed and other times cooled again. Why would it be straight-line-cooling or steady-state?
Sure it may be implausible that a bit of extra CO2 would heat up the troposphere at sea level by any great amount. But we don’t want to be absolutist about these things. Surely if conditions were right and the deep oceans were warm in a sustained way deeper strata would begin to heat up. Since conditions would be less favourable for the heat to escape the way it probably does now. That is to say in a steady state basis. And surely an increase in volcanic activity in any time period is evidence of what I’m talking about here.
” and so is insignificant as a contributor to global temperatures.”
Right now perhaps. And then again not all joules are equal. It matters where you put the element in the kettle. Joules moving all the way from bottom to top are doing double duty. You place your central heating in the basement.
But you have not acknowledged the point about earths history. Which is particularly glaring since your alarmist models cannot account for earths history.
Internally generated heat would be important in escaping glacial periods. I think this can be proven pretty easily.
NT
Just what scientific education have you? Just curious.
To state the obvious, the earth’s base temperature is what it is without a sun. Add the sun and the diurnal variation oscillates around the base period.
In addition none of you include the enormous amount of electrical energy entering the earth as measured by satellites (See THEMIS mission data).
Since the earth is therefore part of a large solar electrical circuit, including the sun, the planets and the galaxy, as described in the physics of the Plasma Universe by A. J. Peratt, and others, I find it amusing that the largest force in the universe, 10^39 times greater than gravity, it totally excluded from any theory of geophysics.
My postion on climate is identical to that of physicist Wallance Thornhill, and summarised http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!315.entry
As my blog is on the Index of Site, here is the summary:
Because the Earth is a small charged body moving in a large cell of plasma, explanations of all physical phenomena in, on, and near the Earth must take the electrical behavior of plasma into account.
Earth’s atmosphere is an insulating medium separating the charge on the surface from the charge in the surrounding space plasma. A complex of “double layers” distributes the potential difference between the surface and space much like a series of capacitors. We detect the electrical field of the bottommost layer in the fair weather surface field of around 100 volts per meter.
This field beneath a thunderstorm may be 100 times stronger as the atmospheric dielectric is “shorted out” over many vertical kilometres by thunderclouds. As in a capacitor, when the insulating medium breaks down a discharge occurs between the electrodes. We can readily understand that lightning in a thunderstorm would be such a discharge. However there are other forms of discharge besides the arc mode of lightning–diffuse glow discharges, such as the sprites that occur above thunderstorms, and, especially, “dark” discharges. Although the latter may carry significant current, we are usually unaware of them because we can’t see or otherwise sense them. But they may have visible secondary effects.
Close observation of laboratory arc discharges reveals that an electrical “wind” surrounds and often precedes the arc. The developing discharge sweeps the surrounding air along with the charge carriers of the current. This wind appears as inflows and updrafts as well as outflows and downdrafts. It can lift dust particles and erode surfaces. By analogy, we must then question the accepted explanation of thunderstorms as being caused solely by convection of hot air: The storms may instead be the visible secondary effects of an invisible dielectric breakdown in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The up- and down-drafts, the in- and out-flows, would be atmospheric responses to “dark discharge” electrical currents more than to temperature differences. Furthermore, the suspension of particles–charged dust and polar molecules (water)–would be largely a result of electrostatic forces sweeping both particles and air along in the electrical field of the discharge. This would explain the spherical shape of hailstones, for example, which do not show the distortion that would be expected if they were formed by being blown upward by strong wind friction forces.
This leads to the more general idea that all weather may be caused, or at least influenced, by the electrical interactions between Earth and the surrounding plasma. Because this larger possibility has never been considered, critical tests have not been devised that would distinguish between the competing explanations. But there are tests that cast doubt on the prevailing theory.
Convection is well understood. The theory of gas behaviour in a convecting system is developed with great exactitude. But the weather forecasts derived from convection theory are more than mere applications of theory: They are also tests of that theory, and a wrong forecast is a falsification of the theory. The significant fraction of erroneous forecasts by weathermen is an indication that the theory is missing something. The Electric Universe suggests that what’s missing is a consideration of the electrical properties of plasma.
Louis, you must like Velikovsky!
Chris Crawford,
Your statement “Louis, you must like Velikovsky!” is a classic non-sequitur given it has to be based on my previous posts immediately above
I don’t see how the theories of the plasma univerese have to do with Velikovsky since these theories were being formulated over 100 years ago by Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuire and their successors, Hannes Alfven and Anthony Peratt.
As for Velikovsky, my position is the same as philosopher David Stove’s, published at this link http://www.kronia.com/library/journals/scimafia.txt
NT
Your silence indicates uyou have no scientific education or training.
In case anyone feels compelled to comment, the link to David Stove’s essay on Velikovsky is published at this url – http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html
Louis Hissink.
Since you are asking about scientific education and training, perhaps you would condescend to respond to this
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php
please.
I invite Graeme Bird, Cohenite, Gordon Robertson, Ian Mott, James Mayeau, other sundry Denialists, and indeed even Jennifer, and Michael Duffy, to contribute.
Your answers will be interesting indeed.
And if you don’t believe that you need to respond, please be especially particular in explaining why you hold this stance.