Earth has been in cool down for billions of years.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Earth has been in cool down for billions of years.

Earth has been in cool down for billions of years.13-02-2022 11:53
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	"The history of Earth has been one of gradually getting colder. Some 4.5 billion years ago, when it was young, its surface was just a deep ocean of violently hot magma; over time, that cooled down to form the crust that..." So we had oceans of magma back in a day but somehow we should belive that we are coming from an ice age and earth is actually warming up? The earth is cooling down gradually over the years. It has two mains sources of energy to keep it warm . One is the sun and the other is its inner core. The inner core keeps cooling down which means the average temperature of earth must also go down. We have global cooling not warming. Easy as that.
13-02-2022 16:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:So we had oceans of magma back in a day but somehow we should belive that we are coming from an ice age and earth is actually warming up? All speculations about the past that are consistent with physics are technically possibilities ... and they are all valid speculations. The kicker is that all speculations about the past that are not consistent with physics, e.g. creationism, are also valid speculations as well. Speculations about the past are not falsifiable, are therefore not science and are not subject to the scientific method. Xadoman wrote:The earth is cooling down gradually over the years. That is an interesting speculation. Xadoman wrote: .The inner core keeps cooling down How many people throughout the history of humanity have observed and confirmed this "cooling" of the inner core? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Gajillions? Xadoman wrote: ...which means the average temperature of earth must also go down. When people talk about the temperature of the earth, they are talking about surface temperature (which includes the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere) and not the internal temperature.
13-02-2022 17:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Xadoman wrote: "The history of Earth has been one of gradually getting colder. Some 4.5 billion years ago, when it was young, its surface was just a deep ocean of violently hot magma; over time, that cooled down to form the crust that..." So we had oceans of magma back in a day How do you know this? It's certainly a valid speculation, but that's all it is. Xadoman wrote: but somehow we should believe that we are coming from an ice age and earth is actually warming up? How do you know this? Again, it's certainly a valid speculation, but that's all it is. Xadoman wrote: The earth is cooling down gradually over the years. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are attempting to compare two different temperatures: the temperature of the Earth including it's core, and the temperature of only the surface. BOTH are mere speculations. BOTH are comparative values over some time you have not specified. NONE of this is science in any way. Science has NO theories about any past unobserved event. BOTH of these beliefs are religions, not science. Xadoman wrote: It has two mains sources of energy to keep it warm. One is the sun and the other is its inner core. The inner core keeps cooling down which means the average temperature of earth must also go down. The Sun we can see. We can also observe that during the day, a surface temperature exposed to that Sun rises, and falls again each night (usually). The temperature at the core is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. Thermal energy at the core is probably coming from radioactivity, but we really don't know. It could be nothing more than gravitational tides and a function of the size of Earth. Xadoman wrote: We have global cooling not warming. Easy as that. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Obviously, you BELIEVE the Earth is cooling, but that's all it is...a belief. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-02-2022 17:37
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	When people talk about the temperature of the earth, they are talking about surface temperature (which includes the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere) and not the internal temperature. You are trying to separate the surface of the earth from the earth itself. You can not trap heat. The heat from the inner core reaches to the surface of the earth and warms it. Inner core is just another energy source besides the sun that heats the surface of the earth. Diminishing power of one power source also means that the overall temperature also must go down. First law of thermodynamics, if I am not mistaken.
13-02-2022 17:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Xadoman wrote: When people talk about the temperature of the earth, they are talking about surface temperature (which includes the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere) and not the internal temperature. You are trying to separate the surface of the earth from the earth itself. No. He is observing how many people do, then conflate it again...such as in the post he responded to. Xadoman wrote: You can not trap heat. Heat has no temperature. Xadoman wrote: The heat from the inner core reaches to the surface of the earth and warms it. Inner core is just another energy source besides the sun that heats the surface of the earth. Diminishing power of one power source also means that the overall temperature also must go down. Energy has no temperature unless it's thermal energy. Xadoman wrote: First law of thermodynamics, if I am not mistaken. You are mistaken. Most forms of energy has no temperature at all. You are making a compositional error fallacy. You are also ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics, which defines the concept of 'temperature'. The concept of 'heat' is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not the 1st. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-02-2022 17:50

13-02-2022 18:34
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Temperature is a movement of the molecules/atoms inside the body. If molecules/atoms do not move relatively to eachother, then the temperature of the body is at absolute zero. The higher the temperature, the faster the movement of the molecules. This movement spreads all over the body. This is called conductive heating. Inside the earth the temperature is very high. The movement of the molecules and atoms is very fast. Those molecules and atoms will collide with adjacent molecules and atoms and so on and on. This movement will spread all over the earth. It reaches to the surface of the earth , to atmosphere, litosphere and so on. Simple as that. First law of thermodynamics states that we can not rise the temperature of the body without additional energy source. I quess it is also safe to say that we can not lower the temperature of the body without removing some of the power devices which heat the body.
13-02-2022 18:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:Temperature is a movement of the molecules/atoms inside the body. No, it is not. What you described is incidental to temperature and serves as a workable proxy measure. Temperature involves thermal energy. Xadoman wrote:If molecules/atoms do not move relatively to eachother, then the temperature of the body is at absolute zero. You have the cause and the effect screwed up. If there is no/negligible thermal energy, the body will be at/near absolute zero. The resulting effect will be that the molecules/atoms will not move or will be moving negligibly.
13-02-2022 19:20
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote:Temperature is a movement of the molecules/atoms inside the body. No, it is not. What you described is incidental to temperature and serves as a workable proxy measure. Temperature involves thermal energy. Xadoman wrote:If molecules/atoms do not move relatively to eachother, then the temperature of the body is at absolute zero. You have the cause and the effect screwed up. If there is no/negligible thermal energy, the body will be at/near absolute zero. The resulting effect will be that the molecules/atoms will not move or will be moving negligibly. Temperature is movement. It simply is the movement of atoms and molecules. Thermal energy is not temperature.
13-02-2022 22:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Xadoman wrote: When people talk about the temperature of the earth, they are talking about surface temperature (which includes the atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere) and not the internal temperature. You are trying to separate the surface of the earth from the earth itself. You can not trap heat. The heat from the inner core reaches to the surface of the earth and warms it. Inner core is just another energy source besides the sun that heats the surface of the earth. Diminishing power of one power source also means that the overall temperature also must go down. First law of thermodynamics, if I am not mistaken. How come regardless of the surface temperature, when you go underground, it's around 55 F? Not sure about how deep you got to go, or if it warms up, further down you go. Just something I've read several times, over the years about caves, and mines... Has anyone ever bored a deep hole, to confirm there is hot core to our planet? Or is it just super-volcanoes and hot springs? The climate guys bore ice cores, really deep too. Millions of years worth of proxy history data. What happens if they bore too deep, and get into the hot, liquid center? Will it melt the last few hundred yards of precious, proxy, ice core samples?
14-02-2022 00:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:The heat from the inner core reaches to the surface of the earth and warms it. Nope. Not substantively. The earth's crust is an amazing insulator at an incomparable scale. If the earth's inner core were to freeze into a ball of ice, we on the surface would not realize it beyond those living near (previously) thermal vents. Yes, hyperthermophiles would be totally screwed but the rest of the planet would continue on as if nothing had changed. Xadoman wrote: Inner core is just another energy source besides the sun that heats the surface of the earth. The crust delimits the sun as the only energy source of any substance. Xadoman wrote:Diminishing power of one power source also means that the overall temperature also must go down. 1. Nope. If the earth's core were to freeze completely, that would not affect the surface temperature. 2. There is no evidence to suggest the earth's inner core is cooling. Nobody has ever compiled of valid dataset of inner core temperature measurements that statistically computes to an average temperature value with a usable margin of error. Ergo, nobody has ever been able to show any cooling to within any usable margin of error. Xadoman wrote: First law of thermodynamics, if I am not mistaken. You are mistaken. The Zeroth Law of thermodynamics is the one you want. .
14-02-2022 00:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	HarveyH55 wrote:How come regardless of the surface temperature, when you go underground, it's around 55 F? Not sure about how deep you got to go, or if it warms up, further down you go. Harvey, you are spot on. If you go somewhere where the temperature outside is 22F, any rock you pick up will be 22F. If you go somewhere the temperature is 80F, that's what the temperature will be of any rock that you pick up. To your point, the crust is such a good insulator that if you dig down about 80 feet, the temperature above ground ceases to matter.
14-02-2022 00:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:Temperature is movement. Nope. Temperature causes motion but is not the motion itself. Xadoman wrote:Thermal energy is not temperature. Correct. Thermal energy is what gives matter temperature. Only matter can have temperature. Xadoman, if you increase the amount of thermal energy in a baseball, the baseball's temperature will increase. If you throw the baseball at 70 KPH, you will increase the average velocity of the baseball's molecules by 70KPH ... and you will not increase its temperature any. I was tempted to say that I realize Wikipedia defines temperature as the motion of molecules, but apparently Wikipedia has fixed that entry. What Wikipedia has is actually correct. I'm surprised. They got something right. ... the manifestation of thermal energy, present in all matter, which is the source of the occurrence of heat, a flow of energy, when a body is in contact with another that is colder or hotter. Temperature should never be confused with heat.
14-02-2022 07:34
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	1. Nope. If the earth's core were to freeze completely, that would not affect the surface temperature. You say so. Laws of physics say that removing a heating energy source would also lower the temperature of the body. The earth's crust is an amazing insulator Heat can not be trapped. There is no evidence to suggest the earth's inner core is cooling. There are thousands and thousands of articles written by people which state that the earth core is cooling. This is evidence. I know science does not use supporting evidence but it still is evidence. The crust delimits the sun as the only energy source of any substance. You can not trap heat. Coffee will cood down in thermos eventually. Nope. Temperature causes motion but is not the motion itself. You got the cause and effect upside down. Temperature is a mental construction. It can not cause anything. Motion of the atoms and moleculs is a real life event. This is what causes temperature of the body. Xadoman, if you increase the amount of thermal energy in a baseball, the baseball's temperature will increase. Thermal energy is a mental costruction. What actually happens is that the movement of the atoms and molecules has been speeded up. For example hammering an iron ball with a mallet will increase the temperature of the ball. If you throw the baseball at 70 KPH, you will increase the average velocity of the baseball's molecules by 70KPH ... and you will not increase its temperature any. Kicking the ball with a baseball bat will increase its temperature. Edited on 14-02-2022 07:36
14-02-2022 09:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote: 1. Nope. If the earth's core were to freeze completely, that would not affect the surface temperature. You say so. Laws of physics say that removing a heating energy source would also lower the temperature of the body. You are going to have to pay attention because I'm not going to repeat this a third time. The temperature of the earth does not refer to the inner core which, due to the strong insulation of the earth's crust, effectively partitions the surface from the internal. The temperatures of the inner core do not substantively or perceptibly affect the average global temperature of the combined lithosphere+hydrosphere+atmosphere. Xadoman wrote:Heat can not be trapped. Correct. Heat can certainly be reduced ... by insulation. Notice that those are different words ... with different meanings. Xadoman wrote:There are thousands and thousands of articles written by people which state that the earth core is cooling. Xadoman, tell me, what quantity of mistaken people is sufficient to transform their error into truth? The conditions at the earth's core are not determined by consensus. Xadoman wrote:This is evidence. Nope. Xadoman wrote:I know science does not use supporting evidence but it still is evidence. Nope. People writing articles is only evidence that people write articles. There have been countless articles and TV shows about the chupacabra. Are you saying that urban legends are their own evidence? Hint: nope, it doesn't work that way. http://monstrumathenaeum.org/proof-chupacabras-are-real-and-getting-around/ Xadoman wrote:You got the cause and effect upside down. Temperature is a mental construction. Nope. I have temperature correct. Only matter can have temperature and thermal energy gives matter temperature. Xadoman wrote:Motion of the atoms and moleculs is a real life event. This is what causes temperature of the body. Nope. Thermal energy establishes the temperature in the matter and the temperature establishes the motion of the molecules. Xadoman wrote:Thermal energy is a mental construction. Thermal energy is a form of energy, like other forms of energy. Do you deny the existence of energy? Xadoman wrote:Kicking the ball with a baseball bat will increase its temperature. This is due to contact force. Stay focused on my example. If you throw a baseball, you increase the average speed of the molecules but you do not increase its temperature.
14-02-2022 10:41
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Good topic, I love watching cricket and when the umpires think the batsman has clipped the ball and been caught out behind they will refer to hotspot and thermal imaging will show if the ball has clipped the bats edge. In the Gascoyne further north of Perth there is a situation where if you drill down around 130 feet you can tap in to this massive aquifer that is hot and the water comes out the ground under its own pressure and is hot enough to burn bare skin.The water supply at Hamelin pool was like this and Mt Augustus which is 650 km away.I have been to Mataranka hot springs which is in the middle of Australia and it is the same thing the water comes out the ground runs down hill a short way then goes back in the ground again.Its like a bath

14-02-2022 12:35
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Nope. I have temperature correct. Only matter can have temperature and thermal energy gives matter temperature. Hammering an iron ball with a mallet will increase the temperature of the ball. Both the iron ball and mallet could be at the beginning at absolute zero without any "thermal energy" but as soon as you start to pounding them together the temperature of both bodies will rise because hammering causes the atoms and molecules to move inside the body( which we call temperature). Edited on 14-02-2022 12:40
14-02-2022 12:56
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	There have been countless articles and TV shows about the chupacabra. Are you saying that urban legends are their own evidence? Hint: nope, it doesn't work that way. You can not prove that chupacabra does not exist.
14-02-2022 18:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:Hammering an iron ball with a mallet will increase the temperature of the ball. ... and this is totally irrelevant. Decreasing the pressure around a pool of water will cause it to boil until it freezes. ... and this is totally irrelevant. Xadoman wrote:Both the iron ball and mallet could be at the beginning at absolute zero without any "thermal energy" but as soon as you start to pounding them together the temperature of both bodies will rise because hammering causes the atoms and molecules to move inside the body( which we call temperature). The hammering causes some of the kinetic energy of the mallet to be converted to an equivalent amount of thermal energy, per 1st law of thermodynamics, which is dispersed to both the mallet and the iron ball. This new infusion of thermal energy increases the temperature of both the mallet and the iron ball.
14-02-2022 18:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:You can not prove that chupacabra does not exist. Of course not. He's in my backyard right now.
14-02-2022 18:55
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	The hammering causes some of the kinetic energy of the mallet to be converted to an equivalent amount of thermal energy, per 1st law of thermodynamics, which is dispersed to both the mallet and the iron ball. Movement of the mallet and colliding with the iron ball causes atoms and molecules to move inside the mallet and in the iron ball(which we call the temperature of the body). Simple as that.
14-02-2022 19:36
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Xadoman wrote: There have been countless articles and TV shows about the chupacabra. Are you saying that urban legends are their own evidence? Hint: nope, it doesn't work that way. You can not prove that chupacabra does not exist. Chupacabra means 'goat-sucker', sort of a redneck insult...
14-02-2022 20:40
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	HarveyH55 wrote: Xadoman wrote: There have been countless articles and TV shows about the chupacabra. Are you saying that urban legends are their own evidence? Hint: nope, it doesn't work that way. You can not prove that chupacabra does not exist. Chupacabra means 'goat-sucker', sort of a redneck insult... I have heard about certain people called goat fückers which could be insulting for some but never heard about insulting someone calling them goat-suckers. Those guys who are raising goats often live in areas where female companions are not present and they have no other options to satisfy their sexuals desires than fücking goats. I have read from forums that those women who have a dog often also fück with them. They would rather fück a dog than settle for an average beta male. This is called "dogpill" in the forums. That is why I would never date a woman who has or has haved a dog in her house. Who am I to judge their behaviour but I simply would not like to be with a woman who has fücked a dog.
15-02-2022 01:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:Movement of the mallet and colliding with the iron ball causes atoms and molecules to move inside the mallet and in the iron ball(which we call the temperature of the body). Simple as that. I'll tell you what, you go on believing that what I wrote is somehow in error. I hope it works out for you.
15-02-2022 07:33
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	some of the kinetic energy of the mallet to be converted to an equivalent amount of thermal energy There is no "magic energy converters". Those are mental constructions. It is as simple as one object hitting another causing atoms and molecules to speed up in both.
15-02-2022 10:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote:There is no "magic energy converters". Those are mental constructions. It is as simple as one object hitting another causing atoms and molecules to speed up in both. Interesting. Energy is just a mental construct and doesn't really exist? Hmmmmm. For the mallet to strike the ball, does it need kinetic energy? ... or does the mallet never really move, with any " motion" simply being a construct of my mind? If the mallet really does move, i.e. has kinetic energy, is there a major reduction in the mallet's speed upon striking the ball? Is there a whole lot less kinetic energy when the mallet strikes the ball? Was the kinetic energy converted to other forms of energy or was that energy destroyed into nothing, showing that the 1st law of thermodynamics is totally untrue?
16-02-2022 16:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Xadoman wrote: 1. Nope. If the earth's core were to freeze completely, that would not affect the surface temperature. You say so. Laws of physics say that removing a heating energy source would also lower the temperature of the body. Heat is not energy. Xadoman wrote: The earth's crust is an amazing insulator Heat can not be trapped. Heat has no temperature. The Earth's crust is an amazing insulator. That means there is very little heat. Xadoman wrote: There is no evidence to suggest the earth's inner core is cooling. There are thousands and thousands of articles written by people which state that the earth core is cooling. This is evidence. I know science does not use supporting evidence but it still is evidence. Science is not evidence of any kind. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Xadoman wrote: The crust delimits the sun as the only energy source of any substance. You can not trap heat. Coffee will cood down in thermos eventually. True, but you are conflating two different systems as the same system again. Xadoman wrote: Nope. Temperature causes motion but is not the motion itself. You got the cause and effect upside down. Temperature is a mental construction. It can not cause anything. Motion of the atoms and moleculs is a real life event. This is what causes temperature of the body. Motion is not temperature. A moving baseball is no hotter than one sitting on the ground. Xadoman wrote: Xadoman, if you increase the amount of thermal energy in a baseball, the baseball's temperature will increase. Thermal energy is a mental costruction. No. Thermal energy is a real thing. Xadoman wrote: What actually happens is that the movement of the atoms and molecules has been speeded up. For example hammering an iron ball with a mallet will increase the temperature of the ball. Special pleading fallacy. You still do not understand that motion is not necessarily temperature. Xadoman wrote: If you throw the baseball at 70 KPH, you will increase the average velocity of the baseball's molecules by 70KPH ... and you will not increase its temperature any. Kicking the ball with a baseball bat will increase its temperature. Special pleading fallacy. Same problem. You need to understand what heat is, what temperature is, and what thermal energy is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-02-2022 18:32
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	The Earth's crust is an amazing insulator. You can not trap heat. The inner core of earth heats the surface of the which radiates according to Boltzmann into the space. Motion is not temperature. A moving baseball is no hotter than one sitting on the ground. Temperature is a mental construction. It is just the motion of the atoms and moleculs inside the body. If atoms and moleculs do not move, the temperature of the body is said to be at absolute zero. A body at absolute zero as a whole could move but if its atoms and moleculs do not move then this body stays at absolute zero. This makes me to think further. Lets say we have all the planets , stars etc moving like they move right now but lets say they are at the beginning at absolute zero. Will they move on infinitely? We know about the tidal forces which cause friction and friction causes movement of the atoms and molecules aka temperature. Those tidal forces are caused by the movement of the planets, stars etc. So we can say that tidal forces will start to heat up the planets, stars etc at the expence of kinetic energy they have from the movement as a whole. So their movement as a whole must decrease. The moon could collapse with the earth. The earth would collapse on the sun etc etc. I know about tidal locks but how can all the planets and stars be at tidal lock all over the universe at the same time? Does not seem possible. So it seems to me that planets, stars, etc would heat up and slow down in motion. How much, I can not tell. Would all the planets and stars stop eventually and all the motion of the planets have gone into the motion of the atoms and molecules inside the stars and planets? I do not know. I would like to know.
16-02-2022 18:45
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: The Earth's crust is an amazing insulator. You can not trap heat. The inner core of earth heats the surface of the which radiates according to Boltzmann into the space. You seem to have missed the part where IBD used the word amazing to describe the insulator rather than the word perfect. Any idea as to why that is?

Join the debate Earth has been in cool down for billions of years.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Would You Join A New Secret Society Help Humans Live To At Least 200 Years And More ?	2	03-01-2024 20:18
The retards at FOX news claim 74 year old rapist teacher faces 600 years behind bars	0	04-08-2023 23:48
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases	3	10-05-2023 08:27
Another dead retard with a gun. I worked on highways for 37 years and never did this	0	29-03-2023 13:24
Alaskan Snow Crab Population Shrinks 90% In 3 Years	8	18-10-2022 23:07