The Missing Geothermal Flux - Joe Olsen.

[Derek]

Hi All,
I have kindly been given permission by Joe Olsen to post the below, in full.
My thanks to Joe Olsen.
I have also attached the piece in an easily downloadable pdf version.

Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux
by,
Joe Olsen.

I have struggled with the ‘missing geothermal flux’ from Earth’s apparent gigantic fission energy for many years. In a number of articles and in my chapter in the science textbook, “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, I have made the point that Earth’s fission rate changes are the most likely cause of the periodic fluctuation in ocean temperatures. In addition, the Earth’s fission operating between two base states sets the lower Glacial Period and upper Inter-glacial Period temperature limits.

The huge problem has been where this energy manifests itself, since apparent geothermal energy release seems isolated and of low magnitude. I had reviewed the article “Ocean Heat Content and Earth’s Radiation Imbalance” by Dr David Douglas and Dr Robert Knox [1] when it was issued and had several email exchanges with Dr Knox on the Earth fission paradox. The Douglas-Knox article was sent as an attachment on a recent email and after rereading I was struck again by this quote:

“ The flux into the ocean and trenches averages 101 mW/m2 and into the land and
shelves averages 65 mW/m2 (globally averaged 87 mW/m2) "

Douglas-Knox then go on to compare the assumed solar flux of 340 W/m2 to this ridiculously low 0.087 W/m2 for Earth’s fission. There is intuitive evidence that Earth’s fission energy is far greater than this, given the core temperature estimated at least
8,000o F and a uniform temperature world wide of at least 2,500o F just 40 miles below the crust. This is NOT left over heat of origin and can NOT be from solar input. The question is how is the excess heat of Earth’s fission controlled and manifested at the surface?

The answer is that the Earth behaves as a gigantic, one way refrigeration cycle. The ‘compressor’ is the near constant production of ‘elemental’ atoms and compounds in the daughter reactions to fission decay. These newly formed atoms are either gases or rapidly form simple gas compounds under the extreme temperature and pressure of this ‘reverse fractional distillation’ geologic process.

These high pressure gases then vent along thousands of miles of under-sea rifts, most located in the 3,000 to 7,000 ft depth range. These newly formed elemental gases are then released under very high pressure into high, but lower pressure water. This causes instant condensation to liquid, or in the case of elemental water and Methane, into solid Methane-Calthrate crystals. The deep ocean is then the ‘condenser’ in this refrigeration cycle.

These now low temperature and high pressure gases mix with the ocean currents, rising and outgassing to maintain equilibrium with the atmosphere in accordance with Boyles and Henry’s Laws. The ocean-air interface is then the ‘evaporator’ in this cycle. These elemental gases become ‘open-loss’ refrigerant in the atmosphere.

Evaporative coolers (aka swamp coolers) are a common appliance in hot dry climates. Warm dry air is blown across a water soaked mat and is cooled by evaporation. The water is the ‘open-loss’ refrigerant carrying away 890 BTU of heat for every pound of water evaporated.

As super-cooled and elemental gas (turned liquid) flows emerge from the under-sea rifts, this dense fluid mix descends to the deeper ocean floor where less than a half mile of sediments separate the ocean water from 2500o F molten mantle rock. Massive amounts of thermal convection occur in these ocean floor zones.

The complete Geothermal Flux is the sum of hot elemental gas phase change to liquid along tens of thousands of miles of ocean rifts and the convective exchange across millions of square miles ocean floor. The change in just a fraction of a degree in temperature along these great areas is all that is necessary for massive climate change.

There are then two processes that have hidden this refrigeration cycle from the less than curious minds of current science community. First, the condensation and solidification at the ocean depths removes the high gaseous heat in exchange for an aqueous-refrigerant chemical mix. Then, much like those in beer, wine or soft drinks, ocean currents raise these entrained gases to warmer, lower pressure depths and these gases are released. These gases enter the atmosphere where the next phase of nature’s deception occurs.

These now ‘excess’ atmospheric gases are under constant erosion from solar wind and molecular decay. The fact that Earth’s elemental gas production is in near equilibrium with this atmospheric loss further conceals the refrigerant aspect and gives the appearance of a ‘constant’ atmosphere.

Freed from the ridiculous assumptions about Earth’s fission rate, we are now able to debate the causes of the periodic fluctuations in fission that are the root cause of the El Nino/La Nina effect. There is an obvious solar cycle trigger to these fission induced ocean temperature changes.

Neutrinos do not leave proxies, but it is highly probable that solar and galactic radiation controls the Earth’s fission rates and that sudden cosmic ray bursts can increase fission and the easily observed outcome of volcanism. It is almost certain that variations in the base state of these radiation forces are the prime climate driver.

Insight into these true Earth science processes began with the correct assessment of the geo-nuclear force presented in “Motive Force for All Climate Change” [2]. This lead to the insight that petroleum is, in fact an ‘elemental molecule’ from fission reactions. This is explained in “Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” [3]. Recognition that the Earth is indeed capable of creating extended Hydrocarbon chains came this week from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [4].

While government scientist have now finally admitted that Methane can form larger molecules they have yet to make the discovery that Methane is a daily by-product of Earth’s great fission furnace. The first step in this journey is the hardest and I will assist the LLNL scientists in completing their understanding of our lovely and complex planet.

Joseph A Olson, PE
Apr 24, 2011

[1] http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglas/pa...3aug31.pdf

[2] http://www.climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3427

[3] http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28111

[4] http://www.llnl.gov/news/newsrelease/201...04-04.html

[Derek]

Whilst thinking this over, I have put together the following.



Somewhat confusingly I have also done this, not completed yet "illustration".

[Richard111]

Interesting stuff Derek. I've long been a fan of under sea documentaries that show "black smokers" down in the deep sea tenches. The tectonic plate theory and the very visible effects on Iceland, saw that on TV the other night. If that is what is happening on land, just what is happening under the sea? I was once given a tour of a deep gold mine in Vaal reefs, South Africa, and I can confirm it was HOT down there compared to the summer sunshine above.

This quote from Joe Olsen struck a chord:

Quote:Neutrinos do not leave proxies, but it is highly probable that solar and galactic radiation controls the Earth’s fission rates and that sudden cosmic ray bursts can increase fission and the easily observed outcome of volcanism.

There is a thread elsewhere on this forum about thorium reactors being controlled by neutrino flux. Makes sense to me that galactic radiation must have some effect. Interesting the current spate of global earth quakes. The reporting on volcanic activity seems a bit low but then I suspect media bias.

Good work on the graphics. Need to show just how thin the liveable crust and atmosphere is compared to the bulk of the planet. Very few people think about stuff like that.

edit: people talk about the heat content of the oceans and the atmosphere, just what is the heat content of the mantle and core?

[Derek]

(05-12-2011 11:48 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  There is a thread elsewhere on this forum about thorium reactors being controlled by neutrino flux.
Makes sense to me that galactic radiation must have some effect.
Interesting the current spate of global earth quakes.
The reporting on volcanic activity seems a bit low but then I suspect media bias.

Bolded part of quote - Great point, very well made, if I may say. AND, one I had "missed" as such.
Am I correct in thinking that the below is the thread you refer to?
Is the safe future of Nuclear power generation Thorium?

(05-12-2011 11:48 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Good work on the graphics.

Thank you, and it is leading me to a new graphic to ask the question
"Is there a missing geothermal flux in the oceans" better.
Hopefully to be posted in a couple of hours.

[Derek]

Whilst putting the various plots together on this thread I visited,
Windows to the Universe - Temperature of Ocean Water.
" Brought to you by the National Earth Sciences Teachers Association."
Where I noted this paragraph.
" 90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean.
The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density.
Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)!
It's really, really cold down there! "

The above has been "nagging" at me. Particularly,
1) " It's really, really cold down there! "
So, I thought I would expand a section of the first plot above to try to illustrate what is "nagging" me better.
and,
2) " Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius "
Flippin heck, 90% of the worlds oceans BETWEEN 0 and 3 C, that is a potentially massive energy "hole".
It may just be the wording of course, in that given the deep ocean is highly stratified,
the word "between" as used could be referring to the temperatures of different layers. I do not know.



This plot is a part of what I am trying to get at. But it is not all of it.
Please note I have "cut off" the plot at the Mantle - modelling figures, and
at the stratosphere - where conventional uses of the terms temperature pressure, etc, tend to "disintegrate"
with relation to the rest of what the plot covers.
I will try to explain the other "parts".

Colder water is (generally) denser, than warmer water, and so it sinks.
Where could this colder water have come from?
The Poles seasonal (winter) sea ice melts in spring, particularly in Antarctica, would be my first suggestion.
Sea ice melts " at about -1.8 °C ".
So, that is a lot of colder than 0C water "input" into the deep oceans.

If "we" are looking at the oceans however, rather than the land, then almost all map projections are not particularly useful,
because they concentrate on keeping the land shapes / relative positions correct,
and not the oceans shapes and relative positions correct.
In most mapping projections the oceans shapes and sizes are somewhat mangled.
This is what in my "Tangerine project" I was trying to look at.
In short, the world's oceans, and especially the deep oceans can easily be viewed as one ocean, that has the Antarctic at it's center.
ie,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...ect/TE.jpg

This "view" of the world oceans "as one" is not exactly new, and I am not saying it is, for example.
Ocean Conveyor Belt Confounds Climate Science
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 04/08/2010 - 13:27
with this illustration.


However, I am not sure it is widely appreciated that the deep oceans can easily be seen as "one deep ocean", with Antarctica at it's center.
(Which I think my tangerine projection better illustrates)

This leads me to ask, should the waters of the deep oceans be nearer -1.7C, just above the melting point of sea ice?
In which case " down there " is not " really, really cold " , it is warmer than it should be.
That is an even larger massive energy / heat input "hole",
involving 90% of the world's oceans,
that is potentially "masking" the possibly missing geothermal heat input.

Maybe, if this is the case, there will be a delayed change in oceanic currents and phases associated with
what Richard111 notes in post 3 in this thread,
namely,

(05-12-2011 11:48 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  There is a thread elsewhere on this forum about thorium reactors being controlled by neutrino flux.
Makes sense to me that galactic radiation must have some effect.
Interesting the current spate of global earth quakes.

Disclaimer - I have not a clue about,
how pressure with depth effects the oceans water temperature,
the salinity changes of sea ice formation and melting effects,
etc, etc, etc,
that could easily, individually or by combination, "rubbish" part or all of this post.

[Richard111]

Gosh! You are a busy bee. Only comment I can add is that the thermohaline currents are driven by salt leaching out of the bottom of sea ice. This very salty water is as you say at about -1.8C, very much colder than freshwater ice. So it has double density, cold and salt, the salt keeps the very cold water liquid and it sinks to the sea bottom and flows away down hill along the sea bed. This is why sea ice is much less salty than the sea it floats on.

[Derek]

Errr, Thanks, I think...

Another "thing" has occurred to me, the oceans have a thermal mass that is 800 to 900 times larger than that of the atmosphere's thermal mass.
The multi named meridional overturning current (MOC), the thermohaline circulation (THC), or the great ocean conveyor belt, supposedly (if it "exists")
has a time cycle of about 800 years.
Ocean Conveyor Belt Theory Dismissed
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 06/29/2010 - 10:50
This 800 year timescale is also seemingly "evidenced" by the CO2 time lag to Global Mean [near surface air] Temperature (usually quoted as a mean of 800 years),
due mainly, most think, to oceanic out gassing / absorbing of CO2 as Sea Surface Temperature rises and falls (for whatever reason/s SST rises and falls).

In short, 800 thermal mass divided by 800 years = 1, therefore
geothermal input to deep oceans could be quite significant, but,
with a (variable) 800 year time lag.
AND, An amount of deep oceanic water is cycled every year that has the same thermal mass as the whole of the atmosphere.
Which is equivalent to, if "we" use -1.7 and 1.5 as our means, +3.2C
- very close to the figure commonly quoted for IPCC CLIMATE SENSITIVITY for temperature increase due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Of course, the cynic in me says, the IPCC would describe this in energy at the surface terms, using W/m2, due to supposedly increasing "back radiation".
Or maybe, if pushed, IPCC et al would resort to the cold of rain, sleet, and snow "they" have ignored so far.

This image from the second link above seems appropriate for the IPCC and AGW.

[Richard111]

Interesting reading in the Hoffman articles, thanks for the links.

I point has crawled through to my convoluted brain that might provide amunition for a foray against the warmists.

It appears the IPCC claims that global warming could cause the Gulf Stream to stop. If this happens winters in Britain will be much colder. How are people going to survive when the windmills stop for days at a time?

(Ignore what Hoffman says, stick to the IPCC claims )

[Derek]

Err, I think the Gulf Stream closing down alarmism is "well dead and buried" now.