Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A science question
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5290 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 137 of 148 (191271)
03-13-2005 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Silent H
03-13-2005 6:30 AM


Re: journey to the center of the earth
While a gradient certainly indicates that heat flow will occur, the amount of heat flow can be minimized (not negated) due to material properties, and movement of materials. This means that due to a slower rate of convection than if it was simply a solid block of the same material, we can have a situation where temperatures are higher in certain regions for long periods of times. I am suggesting this kind of "trapping". It does not have to be perfect or permanent, just a slowing such that a gradient is retained for a long time.
I don't see what you are getting at.
If heat is "trapped", then whatever is being heated gets hotter. This increases the gradient, until the flow is balanced again. The temperature gradients are driven to whatever is needed for energy to escape the system at the same rate it is produced. Any excess or underflow will inevitably alter change the temperature gradient; it is a feedback loop.
In the atmosphere, the situation is more complex due to radiation, and also transport of water vapour; but it is still a balance of input and output.
Within the Earth it is simpler. The temperature gradient below the Earth's surface MEANS that heat is flowing out. I'm not sure if you understand that bit yet. Insulation around a source of energy (like the core, with radioactive decay producing energy) does not actually "slow" the release of energy. It just forces a higher gradient to drive the heat flow required to release the energy.
Indeed, the temperature gradient was used by Lord Kelvin in the late nineteenth century to "prove" that the Earth was only twenty to a hunred thousand years old. In fact the Earth is several billion years old, because it is not "cooling". It is releasing heat being generated by decay. We can calculate how mush by knowing the temperature gradient and also the insulating properties of the rock.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2005 6:30 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2005 6:33 PM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5290 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 140 of 148 (191337)
03-13-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Silent H
03-13-2005 6:33 PM


Re: journey to the center of the earth
I guess what i am saying is that I am not seeing how we have the knowledge that just because there is a gradient we have proved that earth is definitely cooling as an entire system. Do we really know that enough time has passed such that everything should have evened out by now, or that such a large gradient could not exist?
While acknowleding the various complexities you mention about how heat is transported; we do know from the large temperature gradient that Earth is radiating more energy than it receives. There is a flow of energy from the core to the surface, as shown by the gradient, and energy is not accumulating at the surface, as shown by the more or less fixed temperature over a scale of years.
I can accept this way of handling why we can know if it is cooling or not, though now I am confused as it seems you are saying it is not cooling.
There could be two possible sources of the heat flowing up to the surface from the core. One possibility is that the Earth is cooling from an initially molten state. Another is that there is some continuous source of energy within the Earth which is maintaining its high temperature.
If there was no source of energy, the Earth would have long since cooled to solid cold rock. It would take hundreds of thousands of years; but the Earth is over 4 billion years old. This was a problem for geology in the nineteenth century; geology made the Earth seem old, physics and thermodynamics suggested it was much younger.
But there is a source of energy. The heat of the core is maintained by radioactive decay, and this energy transports to the surface as heat flow; by both conduction and convection. The temperature gradient is a consequence of this steady flow of heat, and the gradient is an infallible indicator of a flow of heat energy from the core to the surface.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2005 6:33 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2005 7:49 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 142 by sfs, posted 03-14-2005 10:28 AM Sylas has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5290 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 144 of 148 (191489)
03-14-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by sfs
03-14-2005 10:28 AM


Re: journey to the center of the earth
While this is a reasonable conclusion, do note that it does not actually follow rigorously. The sun is also radiating more energy than it receives, but it has the reverse temperature gradient, at least in the chromosphere and corona. That is, the temperature rises with increasing distance from the center of the sun.
To the best of my limited knowledge, the same principles as apply for the Earth also apply for the Sun. There is a large temperature gradient through the portions of the Sun that are opaque to radiation. This means that the Sun's surface is receiving energy from the inner levels, and that from there it radiates out.
The temperature profiles for the atmosphere are different, in both the Sun and the Earth, because they are in a region where there is considerable radiative transfer. We know that the radiation transfer is outwards given the gradients within Sun and Earth.
Cheers -- Sylas
PS. Added in edit. This post should not be taken as disagreement... sfs is right that temperature profiles in the atmospheres of Sun and Earth sometimes go in reverse. For example, the very outmost parts of Earth's atmosphere have temperature rising with altitude; and the same effect is seen in the stratosphere. The causes of this are beyond my scope to explain; but the fact that there is a of energy flowing through the amosphere without stopping (radiation) is significant. There are also other effects; such as the latent heat in water vapour being carried into the atmosphere. It is also significant that the actual internal energies involved are very low, since the atmosphere has a very limited capacity to absorb heat. The heat flow by conduction is negligible by comparison with the radiation passing through.
Most of the atmosphere gets heated from the surface of the Earth, but the outer layers have a larger input direct from solar radiation. This (I think) basically accounts for the gradients.
For the Sun, the major cause of heating for the chronosphere seems to be magnetic fields. The high temperatures of the corona have long been a serious puzzle for physicists. They knew from thermodynamics that something was heating the corona; but they could not identify what it was. Thermal transfer is ruled out because of the gradient. The puzzle recently took a major step towards solution. See Solar Mystery Nears Solution With Data From SOHO Spacecraft.
This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-14-2005 04:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by sfs, posted 03-14-2005 10:28 AM sfs has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024