The earth will end – in 10 million years! I think!

[borrofburi]

It can't explode, there's no oxygen. I suppose if there were some other reactive component that lead to exothermic reactions it might explode, but that seems unlikely. Potential energy goes untapped all the time, for instance diamonds at atmospheric pressure have potential energy, and yet we never see a diamond explode, rather over scores of years it slowly turns into graphite.

Isn't it the other way around?

Doesn't graphite become diamond?

Not at atmospheric pressure and surface heat, down in the mantle it turns out diamond is the lowest state, but up here graphite is a lower state so diamonds over long periods of time turn into graphite. I can't remember if it was my chemistry teacher or my thermo teacher who gleefully exclaimed "diamonds are not forever!" Anyway, I did a quick google search and came up with this: http://www.qondio.com/diamonds-are-not-forever

Which of course says "millions of years", so perhaps I was somewhat ill-informed, though I do remembering doing calculations confirming that graphite is indeed the lower state (of energy? No I think there's a technical term I can't remember in there somewhere (which probably simply means "lower state of energy")).

 

[Durakken]

I have to ask... how did you even remotely come to this idea... this is something like 6-8th grade science.

As far as the diamonds... If I recall correctly...Diamonds are made of swamp land or something like that that turns in to coal and under pressure becomes diamonds...

Also there are theories that say there is a layer of diamonds in the earth... it's been a while since i heard anything about it.

 

[nasher168]

When coal is subducted down to the mantle, the most that would happen is it melting and being distributed around the mantle like all the other stuff that gets in there.

 

[Tsunamie]

This is like going to an evolution conference and saying something like "evolution can't happen because of the second law of thermodynamics!" and complaining when everyone there simply laughs at you: what you said displays great ignorance and a significant lack of understanding.

Hum"¦ it would appear assumption seems to be correct. That the earth does lose heat over time. As a result the surface temperature will decrease along with the core temperature. My scale is off and something I already admit to.

How are the scientists at such a conference supposed to respond? "Critically" respond to his hypothesis? Spend the requisite hour to explain what the second law of thermodynamics says, what evolution says, and why thermodynamics is perfectly consistent with evolution? No, they laugh at the guy, and then move on to more interesting things.

The difference here is we are not a conference of scientists. We are individuals from multiple background floating ideas. In this environment do you think it is helpful that you not only do not explain why you insult the person? However presume a level of knowledge with in a field that is not actually taught unless you specialize in the field?

If that guy *really* wants to know, he could go take a thermo class and an evolution class and then do a quick google search on entropy and evolution (hopefully leading to this very interesting article).

I am 24, I did a degree in electronic engineer and cybernetics. My knowledge of chemistry extends to what is in the anarchist cook book on making termite. I am sorry I lack knowledge for chemical reactions on a college level. This still does not excuse a group of individuals ridiculing someone that is egger to learn specific knowledge about something.

So what you've done here is post indicating a significant lack of understanding of oil, the world, and geothermal energy; what you need to do is take a geology or earth sciences class and possibly a class on drilling for oil, and most of your questions should be answered naturally.

I disagree I lack significant amounts of knowledge concerning the world. I do admit a large gap in knowledge in oil and geothermal energy.
I like how you indicate that it's possible to take a class to "drill for oil" or it is easy for someone though just take up a full time course in a hobby field of interest. I am sorry, but even in the UK where education is free until your 18.
So I am sorry for floating an idea here with your kind of response. I did not know this forum was complete restricted to scientists.

Yes there is, it's called chemistry class, and the answer is simple: nothing / it melts. There are experiments where you put wood in a vacuum on a hot plate and watch it melt because there's no oxygen (ok well there's a little, but it goes away quickly) to allow a fire to happen. Also, that question is a *much* better thing to simply creating a thread to ask than making assumptions about it and developing a hypothesis, basically your hypothesis had a *large* number of things wrong and made assumptions, it would have been fine if instead you had made a thread asking several questions about what *does* happen.

As explained above my situation, I do not have that luxury, especially when chemistry classes would not cost me around ,£1.5k-3k which I don't currently have to spare.
I do see your point of asking the questions separately instead of floating the idea. However this still does not excuse people from being jerks because they are knowledgeable of a facet of knowledge when you are not. How do you feel when a farmer laughs at you when you're trying to understand basics of how farming works? Or a mechanic or car enthusiastic ridicules you for your lack of knowledge in engine types. Or an electronic engineer like me mocks you for not being able to program a microprocessor or build a basic computer system and program it using machine code?

The sun adds a lot of energy to the system, not sure if it's a net loss or not. I do object to the word "large amounts", if for no other reason than that large is a relative term, and while yes, the sun does lose *large* amounts of energy and will eventually stop fusing hydrogen and thus stop producing heat, it also has *extraordinarily large* amounts of energy to supply its "large" amounts of energy loss for a "long" time. See how quickly these silly relative terms lose a lot of meaning?

Fair enough. I have been trying to work out how much energy is lost from the core if any net loss actually exists. I have not done the math on net loss of how much energy is gained from the sun or how much energy is lost from the core.

"I am expecting more" so what? He told you nothing happens and your response is "I feel like you must be wrong"?

No, because it does not make sense. You add enough energy for a material to change states. In this case a liquid with large amounts of energy which also happens to be extremely flammable. So for nothing to happen or a new material to be produced does not make sense.

It can't explode, there's no oxygen. I suppose if there were some other reactive component that lead to exothermic reactions it might explode, but that seems unlikely. Potential energy goes untapped all the time, for instance diamonds at atmospheric pressure have potential energy, and yet we never see a diamond explode, rather over scores of years it slowly turns into graphite.

This is my point here. In all the explanations I have been given so far. SOMETHING HAPPENS! IT does not make sense that nothing happens to a material your subjecting to an increase of temperature that can change the state of the material.
I was expecting someone to say it turns into a gas, breaks down more basic material or form more complex material. Either way, energy would be added to the mantel layer from these changes.

When coal is subducted down to the mantle, the most that would happen is it melting and being distributed around the mantle like all the other stuff that gets in there.

Does this add energy/heat material or is energy simply expended to heat the coal? Can I assume that more energy is being released than is used when the bonds break to change the state of coal?

 

[borrofburi]

As explained above my situation, I do not have that luxury, especially when chemistry classes would not cost me around ,£1.5k-3k which I don't currently have to spare.

I understand that, but sometimes the lack of knowledge is so pervasive that it's not possible for people "in the know" to answer a question or two. For instance my understanding of evolutionary biology and thermodynamics comes from scores (possibly hundreds) of hours of study and learning. And while I've forgotten much of it, and while we've gotten good at distilling evolutionary concepts from tons of debate, I could not possibly communicate all that I know to someone in any reasonable amount of time. If they want to know what I know, they pretty much have to read the right books or take the right classes, period (and evolutionary biology is not even my field).

I do see your point of asking the questions separately instead of floating the idea. However this still does not excuse people from being jerks because they are knowledgeable of a facet of knowledge when you are not. How do you feel when a farmer laughs at you when you're trying to understand basics of how farming works? Or a mechanic or car enthusiastic ridicules you for your lack of knowledge in engine types. Or an electronic engineer like me mocks you for not being able to program a microprocessor or build a basic computer system and program it using machine code?

But I don't go to the farmer and tell him my hypothesis on how he should be farming. I don't go to you and tell you that my hypothesis of how to program a microcontroller is to write some visual basic code on a flash drive and plug it in and I would like critical analysis of my hypothesis. Instead I ask questions of the farmer, I ask questions of the electrical engineer that display the same ignorance but *also* display a willingness/desire to learn (and an acknowledgment of said ignorance).

"I am expecting more" so what? He told you nothing happens and your response is "I feel like you must be wrong"?

No, because it does not make sense. You add enough energy for a material to change states. In this case a liquid with large amounts of energy which also happens to be extremely flammable. So for nothing to happen or a new material to be produced does not make sense.

It can't explode, there's no oxygen. I suppose if there were some other reactive component that lead to exothermic reactions it might explode, but that seems unlikely. Potential energy goes untapped all the time, for instance diamonds at atmospheric pressure have potential energy, and yet we never see a diamond explode, rather over scores of years it slowly turns into graphite.

This is my point here. In all the explanations I have been given so far. SOMETHING HAPPENS! IT does not make sense that nothing happens to a material your subjecting to an increase of temperature that can change the state of the material.
I was expecting someone to say it turns into a gas, breaks down more basic material or form more complex material. Either way, energy would be added to the mantel layer from these changes.

When coal is subducted down to the mantle, the most that would happen is it melting and being distributed around the mantle like all the other stuff that gets in there.

Does this add energy/heat material or is energy simply expended to heat the coal? Can I assume that more energy is being released than is used when the bonds break to change the state of coal?

Oh *I see* what you're saying. First, not all energy is in a usable state, cellulose (I think... don't quote me on that) has energy, and when we eat it you can say the energy in our body has increased, however we as human beings are simply incapable of breaking down cellulose and it typically leaves the body in the same state it entered with the same total energy it had when it entered. Coal/oil when they enter the mantle (which lacks oxygen) may or may not do anything other than change from solid into liquid or gas; simply that they contain a lot of energy does not mean the mantle will gain any energy from them.

Secondly, and perhaps much more importantly, the amount of energy in the sum total of coal and oil is far less than the heat energy that is already in the center of the earth, whether it supplies extra heat energy or not is mostly irrelevant because what it is possibly capable of supplying is honestly very small (yah I'm not citing sources, so take it for what its worth as the opinion of one guy who took a class on oil and drilling for it and the like, a couple classes in chemistry, a class on thermo, and a class on geology and a class on earth sciences applying the knowledge he remembers).

This makes sense if we reason through it: the earth first formed as extremely hot matter condensing with a variety of elements, over time the surface cooled off a bit and formed the crust and heavy elements tended to fall to the center; then eventually life began, and photosynthesis captured a lot of energy from the sun, and oxygen/atmosphere also kept solar energy in the system, then some of the life was buried (with lots of energy from the sun in it) and it was pressed and formed coal and oil. That is, oil can be seen as the buildup of solar energy over long periods of time; because of that, it couldn't possibly be a significant supplier of geothermal energy.

 

[Womble]

*twitches from the amount of STOOOPID that she's seen in this thread*

Jebus christ on a stick.........the mantle is not liquid, come on everyone , say it after me......the.mantle.is.not.liquid...... Ohhh yeeeaaaahh! Doesn't that make you all feel better now that we've got rid of that assinine idea? There is a small amount of molten material down there, but that's 5% and it's only in the aesthenosphere which is comparatively shallow. The reason why the mantle flows is because of the very special and funky conditions that the rock is under at those depths, it's all manner of dirty-goodness........oooooohhh yeeeaaaaahhhhhh!

*wonders why she's gone all DJ Beerman*

But anyway.....

You got ridiculed because you posted up some super speshul and crap ideas showing up the unknown caverns of your ignorance in this matter. Fair enough if you'd posted up some questions asking what was going on but you didn't, hence the ridicule. Now it might not have been the most adult thing in the world but it was done. You can take it on the chin as a result of something rancidly stupid, or you can whinge like a baby, choice is yours.

Also the earth isn't in danger of losing it's internal heat any time soon as it's constantly regenerated due to radioactive decay in the core. I will make an edumacated assumption (given that i am a graduate with a degree in Geology) that once the radioactive decay has seased that we will have some time left before the remains of the heat in the planet bleed away. That will be the least of our worries as by that time we ourselves as a species will be quite dead.....you could say that we will be deader than a can of spam. It may also be interesting to ponder whether or not by the time that happens if the sun has reached its red giant phase and expanded to the sixe that it encompasses our orbit........

 

[Durakken]

I understand that, but sometimes the lack of knowledge is so pervasive that it's not possible for people "in the know" to answer a question or two. For instance my understanding of evolutionary biology and thermodynamics comes from scores (possibly hundreds) of hours of study and learning. And while I've forgotten much of it, and while we've gotten good at distilling evolutionary concepts from tons of debate, I could not possibly communicate all that I know to someone in any reasonable amount of time. If they want to know what I know, they pretty much have to read the right books or take the right classes, period (and evolutionary biology is not even my field).

Here's the thing... Much of our knowledge is based on many other things that one needs to understand to understand the thing that all that stuff flows into...

You asking will mining oil result in catastrophic failure to the Earth's core which will cause our planet to go cold and all life die and/or result in the planet exploding?

implicit in this question is...
How the earth generates heat
How life survive on earth
How chemicals interact
Nuclear physics
Plate tectonics
Geology
Several mathematics which calculate how deep the oil goes down, how long they will last, etc
radiometric dating
Astrophysics, in particular areas interested in solar activity
How we can tell whats inside the earth
spectroscopy
Biology and biological decay
The understand how waves works and how they travel through different materials
Chemistry
How Atoms work, including the weak and strong force
How gravity works
How explosions work

And I'm sure that is only a fraction of what you need to know and I'm willing to bet you can break those into very precise categories that deal with hundreds if not thousands of little things in each of those things discovered over the last thousand years...

To explain to you how come oil won't cause the world to explode and it is not fueling the earth's heating process you have to understand all that stuff... Sometimes, it's a matter of someone knowing all that stuff and not connecting it to the why of a question. It's sorta like you have the data and the answer, but for some reason you do not think "a + b = c", but rather you going "a + ? = c" and where that ? is you just throw in nonsense or leave it blank (most people fill in with nonsense and think it's right. Logical people give a guess but leave it blank till confirmed.)

The other way to be is you are really really really uninformed. REALLY uninformed. For you to have presented such an idea most of us think you are this. Which is very frightening because all of this is, as i mentioned before, all taught before highschool. Maybe not specific details, but enough so that this type of thing shouldn't occur.

Why are people so "rude". Dude, most people here, I assume, pay taxes to fund a public education system to teach you this very thing. If it is not teaching you this then there is something wrong with the system or you. Generally speaking, the system works good enough that people aren't that ignorant so it is probably you. This leads to, either you're willfully ignorant, which means you are tossing out what people who spend their lives doing this are telling you or you didn't pay attention in school and didn't go look into it on your own, OR you are somehow mentally impaired and there is nothing we can do for you save point you back to the system which should help you. The latter of these is insulting and is wrong to do, according to the null hypothesis, and thus we must assume less shown otherwise that you are merely a lazy jackass and you presence is rude in and of itself.


note: not directed a burrofburi, but at the OT >.> just expanding a bit on the quoted bit.

edit: use "your" "you're" twice in this and 50% of them were wrong v.v

 

[borrofburi]

note: not directed a burrofburi, but at the OT >.> just expanding a bit on the quoted bit.

I was more than a bit confused for a while...

edit: use "your" "you're" twice in this and 50% of them were wrong v.v

Meh, Womble screwed up a whole bunch of spelling too...

 

[kf00kaha]

OK, just for fun I did the following google searches:

• 'earth crust thickness'
  'oil drilling depth'
  'earth inner temperature'
  'oil reserves'
  'earth volume'

Now, most of the stuff I found is taken from Wikipedia, since this was the first post coming up for every search. Oh, and on 'earth inner temperature' I actually had to click on 'Earth's temperature gradient' in the article.

This took me like 15 min (yes, I'm a slow reader, but I also talked with my wife at the same time ), and even if I would have no knowledge of chemistry and thermodynamics (which I have, by the way) I could at least get some sense of what scales we're talking about: the earths volume is about 1,083,207,317,374 cubic kilometers (which is quite a volume). The volume of the core is less than 1% of the earths volume, which then would be less than 10,832,073,174 km^3.

As a comparison, the calculated sum of the top 17 oil reserves is 197.6 km^3... That doesn't do much, even if it would have been radioactive...

Oh, did another google search on the coal reserves: about 10^9 tonnes is proven reserves (2006), however China produced over 2 billion tonnes during 2006 and we haven't heard about any depletion yet, have we, so I'm sure there's more... Let's say 50 billion tonnes for the sake of argument, okay?

Now, the density of coal is a bit tricky, since it varies, but it's between ~0.8-1.5 g/cm^3 so let's say 1.2 g/cm^3, which is 1.2 tonnes/m^3 or 1.2 billion tonnes/km^3. That leaves us with less than 50 km^3 of coal in the world... :shock:

Did I just miscalculate or is this a huge estimation error? This number is totally unreasonable... :?
Can't see it right now, help please! :cry:

Anyway Tsunamie, just by looking at these numbers (forget the coal for the moment, something's wrong there) you must realize that your hypothesis was flawed (as you have already admitted). If you want to learn more of these things (and other) I would recommend the local library: there are loads of popular science books that explain the world around us in a very comprehensible way, and if you're in the mood for more hard core science I'm sure they'll be happy to help you. And do observe that I do not mock your lack of knowledge in this matter; I'm trying to encourage your own search for it, mainly because it would take us too long to give you all the correct answers, but also for your own benefit.

First, not all energy is in a usable state, cellulose (I think... don't quote me on that) has energy, and when we eat it you can say the energy in our body has increased, however we as human beings are simply incapable of breaking down cellulose and it typically leaves the body in the same state it entered with the same total energy it had when it entered.

Yes, cellulose has energy, you can burn it but yes, I believe we lack some enzymes to break it down, but the discussion is correct anyway.

 

[Tsunamie]

But I don't go to the farmer and tell him my hypothesis on how he should be farming. I don't go to you and tell you that my hypothesis of how to program a microcontroller is to write some visual basic code on a flash drive and plug it in and I would like critical analysis of my hypothesis. Instead I ask questions of the farmer, I ask questions of the electrical engineer that display the same ignorance but *also* display a willingness/desire to learn (and an acknowledgment of said ignorance).

Have you READ the original post. I ask questions and for peoples input. I asked questions!

"I have a hypothesis that is loosely based on some facts. Was wondering what people thought of this idea?"

"We are aware that the majority of fossil fuels are result of the compression of organic matter over millions of years. My question there for is what happens when this fossil fuel eventually reaches the low end of the earth's crust and into the mantel of the planet. Is fossil fuel apart of planetary system that fuels bio diversity as well as a mechanism to keep the planetary Furness?"

Was these questions missed!

Oh *I see* what you're saying. First, not all energy is in a usable state, cellulose (I think... don't quote me on that) has energy, and when we eat it you can say the energy in our body has increased, however we as human beings are simply incapable of breaking down cellulose and it typically leaves the body in the same state it entered with the same total energy it had when it entered. Coal/oil when they enter the mantle (which lacks oxygen) may or may not do anything other than change from solid into liquid or gas; simply that they contain a lot of energy does not mean the mantle will gain any energy from them.

Look,

1> if the mantel is between 500C to 900C and crude oil is distilled in to lubician at 200-370C with petroleum being distilled at 40C. I think there is more than enough energy to turn this into a Gas. (that is my understanding)

2> you do not have to burn anything to create an explosion. Anything that expands rapidly can create an explosion. Anything that changes states quickly can create rapid expansion and there for an explosion when placed under immense pressure. I would have thought 400 KM down would allow for such pressure to build in pockets.

Secondly, and perhaps much more importantly, the amount of energy in the sum total of coal and oil is far less than the heat energy that is already in the center of the earth, whether it supplies extra heat energy or not is mostly irrelevant because what it is possibly capable of supplying is honestly very small (yah I'm not citing sources, so take it for what its worth as the opinion of one guy who took a class on oil and drilling for it and the like, a couple classes in chemistry, a class on thermo, and a class on geology and a class on earth sciences applying the knowledge he remembers).

My position was not the fact that the earth core heat was being powered by the sun. I know the figures were ridiculously small, however the hypothesis was trying o drive at the point that we are speeding up the death of our planet. Since we know the core is cooling, however slowly that may be. Removing something that feeds energy it would be speeding up planet death?

This makes sense if we reason through it: the earth first formed as extremely hot matter condensing with a variety of elements, over time the surface cooled off a bit and formed the crust and heavy elements tended to fall to the center; then eventually life began, and photosynthesis captured a lot of energy from the sun, and oxygen/atmosphere also kept solar energy in the system, then some of the life was buried (with lots of energy from the sun in it) and it was pressed and formed coal and oil. That is, oil can be seen as the buildup of solar energy over long periods of time; because of that, it couldn't possibly be a significant supplier of geothermal energy.

Fair enough statement to make, this is kind of what I was driving at. However I would still like help if you would be so kind is to understand how I would go about calculating such net loss and net gains from fossil fules or high energy material.

Step 1> Work out if energy being added to the core and how much is being added thought the amount of oil/coal already removed from the ground.
Step 2> Calculate how much time it would have taken to reach the mantel or if it in deeds reaches the mantel.
Step 3> Calculate the net lose of the core and when planetary death occurs.
Step 5> Calculate if the life span is increased with the amount of oil we have taken out and added it at regular intervals if the planets life span increases.

Now given that the sun would burn out in 5 Billion years and I do not know how to calculate how long before the core temperature lower to the point where it could not support life. I took on a shot in the dark on when the planet surface temperature was cold enough due to the drop in the core temperature. I HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT MY SHOT IN THE DARK WAS VERY BAD. I already agreed that I did not understand the time scale's I was dealing with.

Jebus christ on a stick.........the mantle is not liquid, come on everyone , say it after me......the.mantle.is.not.liquid...... Ohhh yeeeaaaahh! Doesn't that make you all feel better now that we've got rid of that assinine idea? There is a small amount of molten material down there, but that's 5% and it's only in the aesthenosphere which is comparatively shallow. The reason why the mantle flows is because of the very special and funky conditions that the rock is under at those depths, it's all manner of dirty-goodness........oooooohhh yeeeaaaaahhhhhh!

I am confused, all references of the mantel I have red describe it as a highly vicourius which would indicate a fluid like substance.

You got ridiculed because you posted up some super speshul and crap ideas showing up the unknown caverns of your ignorance in this matter. Fair enough if you'd posted up some questions asking what was going on but you didn't, hence the ridicule. Now it might not have been the most adult thing in the world but it was done. You can take it on the chin as a result of something rancidly stupid, or you can whinge like a baby, choice is yours.

Hum"¦ actually if you READ my first post I did. My first post clearly indicated that "I have a hypothesis that is loosely based on some facts." And I go on to say later on "This of course is a very loose Hypothesis"

I then go on to say,

"Secondly is it plausible that we have actually already spelled the doom of the planet by removing basic material for the core of the planet to produce heat with."

I already admitted my ignorance and that it was a shoddy idea to begin with in the very FIRST POST. To then have so many people simply insult me is just ridicules and it shows that the individuals that think it's okay to unleash a torrent of radical and insults for simply asking a few questions and stating some idea's and even asking if something is plausible is beyond childish.

Also the earth isn't in danger of losing it's internal heat any time soon as it's constantly regenerated due to radioactive decay in the core. I will make an edumacated assumption (given that i am a graduate with a degree in Geology) that once the radioactive decay has seased that we will have some time left before the remains of the heat in the planet bleed away. That will be the least of our worries as by that time we ourselves as a species will be quite dead.....you could say that we will be deader than a can of spam. It may also be interesting to ponder whether or not by the time that happens if the sun has reached its red giant phase and expanded to the sixe that it encompasses our orbit........

I already understood that it was not going to expire any time soon. I do agree that my understanding of scale on a planetary level was never and stupid. However I still think that people acting like a jerk is neither productive nor helpful.

I also amused that since you have a degree in Geology, you assume everyone seems to have known that the core of the planet was being primarily driven by radioactive decay. This is not taught to 16 year olds. May be to 18 year olds doing geology but most defiantly not to someone studying mechanical and electrical engineering when he was at college at 18.

Durakken,

I defy you now to bring me a book that teaches at GCSE level that the core of planet is kept hot because of radioactive decay. I then add a second REALISTIC measure to add that this book also had to be used in geography classes in the UK 8 years ago.
I also defy you to provide me any mathematical examples problem that teaches at 16 years old to calculate heat lose of a planet.

I am nether mentally impaired; I am neither throwing peoples heard work away. I from the start asked some very basic questions. I did not even hold on to the idea that this was defiantly happening. I even asked it is event PLAUSIBLE!

So before you continue insulting me for something that is clearly unreasonable on the part of the individuals that feel it's okay to insult someone's lack of knowledge in a specialized field. I want to ask you if it's okay to insult people who ask for information.

Kf00kaha -

From my first post I had already stated it was a weak idea that was based on my limited knowlege. I did not realize how many jerks there were and how far they will go when someone puts up an unrealistic idea. I was going to go an read more about it anyway since several people have been really rude about it anyway.

Thanks for being resonable.

 

[Durakken]

Durakken,

I defy you now to bring me a book that teaches at GCSE level that the core of planet is kept hot because of radioactive decay. I then add a second REALISTIC measure to add that this book also had to be used in geography classes in the UK 8 years ago.
I also defy you to provide me any mathematical examples problem that teaches at 16 years old to calculate heat lose of a planet.

I am nether mentally impaired; I am neither throwing peoples heard work away. I from the start asked some very basic questions. I did not even hold on to the idea that this was defiantly happening. I even asked it is event PLAUSIBLE!

So before you continue insulting me for something that is clearly unreasonable on the part of the individuals that feel it's okay to insult someone's lack of knowledge in a specialized field. I want to ask you if it's okay to insult people who ask for information.

That's an idiotic thing to ask. I know it was taught in my school (and they used an outdated book). That was 10 years or so ago. UK has a better education system than America from what I know so it must have been in there or at least enough information to know that what you asked is utterly stupid.

Also not talking a mathematical formula to calculate planetary heat lose. We're talking about enough information to to toss out what you were asking, which is an assumption that oil fuels planetary heat. I mean... that's so bad of a idea, even ancient people had a better idea.

 

[borrofburi]

Alright, whatever, we got off on a bad foot. My point is simply that there would have been far better ways to start off, namely with "I have a few facts, but now I have a bunch of questions, can you answer the following?", it indicates a difference in attitude, one that might simply get a highly negative reaction because we're used to dealing with creationists who operate with a similar attitude. Either way, you will get further in life saying "I have facts, this leads me to these questions, will you please answer them" than you will ever get with "I have facts, so here's *my* hypothesis", if for no other reasons than the emotions others will feel when confronted with both.

2> you do not have to burn anything to create an explosion. Anything that expands rapidly can create an explosion. Anything that changes states quickly can create rapid expansion and there for an explosion when placed under immense pressure. I would have thought 400 KM down would allow for such pressure to build in pockets.

This is mostly a thing to do with volumes concerned (see kf00kaha's post). The amount of oil in a deposit is too small to make much of a difference. I should however note we're getting to the very edges of my knowledge where things are fairly fuzzy.

however the hypothesis was trying o drive at the point that we are speeding up the death of our planet. Since we know the core is cooling, however slowly that may be. Removing something that feeds energy it would be speeding up planet death?

Probably not, again look at kf00kaha's post, there's not a lot of oil when compared to the earth as a whole, and the energy in all that oil is paltry when compared with the energy in radioactive decay on planetary scale.

Fair enough statement to make, this is kind of what I was driving at. However I would still like help if you would be so kind is to understand how I would go about calculating such net loss and net gains from fossil fules or high energy material.

Step 1> Work out if energy being added to the core and how much is being added thought the amount of oil/coal already removed from the ground.
Step 2> Calculate how much time it would have taken to reach the mantel or if it in deeds reaches the mantel.
Step 3> Calculate the net lose of the core and when planetary death occurs.
Step 5> Calculate if the life span is increased with the amount of oil we have taken out and added it at regular intervals if the planets life span increases.

Now given that the sun would burn out in 5 Billion years and I do not know how to calculate how long before the core temperature lower to the point where it could not support life. I took on a shot in the dark on when the planet surface temperature was cold enough due to the drop in the core temperature. I HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT MY SHOT IN THE DARK WAS VERY BAD. I already agreed that I did not understand the time scale's I was dealing with.

(again, while I'd simply like to say "i guess we got off to a bad start", I feel it necessary to point out that you will get further in life by only taking shots in the dark when you have to, and instead ask questions to others who might have already been through and seen that dark area)

What you're asking for in your steps is quite difficult. Instead calculate an approximate energy amount in oil per volume, then compare to the approximate amount of oil on the planet to get an approximate amount of total energy in oil on the planet; then try to find out how much energy there is in radioactive substances that have yet to decay (I have less of an idea on how precisely to go about the latter). While this won't get you precisely what you want, I think it will give you an idea of the scale, and I expect it to be around 5 orders of magnitude difference, if that, but again I'm talking from the very edges of my knowledge (i.e. about stuff I don't know too well). If you see that all the oil energy on the planet is 1/1000th of a percent you will see that it might make a difference of not much.

Also an interesting question is when the earth will run out of heat (I imagine there'd be some paper on this somewhere, otherwise suggest it to a geology phd candidate for a dissertation or something (maybe masters or maybe just a great paper, but someone somewhere will be pleased to know it hasn't been done before)) compared to when the sun will go red giant and eat the earth...

 

[GreatLich]

Also an interesting question is when the earth will run out of heat (I imagine there'd be some paper on this somewhere, otherwise suggest it to a geology phd candidate for a dissertation or something (maybe masters or maybe just a great paper, but someone somewhere will be pleased to know it hasn't been done before)) compared to when the sun will go red giant and eat the earth...

Poking around Wiki specifically here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
gives "Total heat loss from the earth is 42 TW (4.2 × 1013 Watts). This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,)" while "The heat of the earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW."

So that's a net deficit of 12 TW.

If someone has a figure for the total heat content of the interior of earth, we have a timeline.

 

[scalyblue]

why is there an assumption that the earth will be destroyed if/when its core/mantel were to cool down?

 

[kf00kaha]

Oh, did another google search on the coal reserves: about 10^9 tonnes is proven reserves (2006), however China produced over 2 billion tonnes during 2006 and we haven't heard about any depletion yet, have we, so I'm sure there's more... Let's say 50 billion tonnes for the sake of argument, okay?

Now, the density of coal is a bit tricky, since it varies, but it's between ~0.8-1.5 g/cm^3 so let's say 1.2 g/cm^3, which is 1.2 tonnes/m^3 or 1.2 billion tonnes/km^3. That leaves us with less than 50 km^3 of coal in the world... :shock:

Did I just miscalculate or is this a huge estimation error? This number is totally unreasonable... :?
Can't see it right now, help please! :cry:

Ok, I did some more searching and got a more reasonable estimate of 660-850 billion tonnes of coal left in the reserves. That would make a total volume of coal in the crust of 550-700 km^3, which is a more reasonable number. It's still nothing compared to the volume of the crust though.

 

[borrofburi]

Also an interesting question is when the earth will run out of heat (I imagine there'd be some paper on this somewhere, otherwise suggest it to a geology phd candidate for a dissertation or something (maybe masters or maybe just a great paper, but someone somewhere will be pleased to know it hasn't been done before)) compared to when the sun will go red giant and eat the earth...

Poking around Wiki specifically here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
gives "Total heat loss from the earth is 42 TW (4.2 × 1013 Watts). This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,)" while "The heat of the earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW."

So that's a net deficit of 12 TW.

If someone has a figure for the total heat content of the interior of earth, we have a timeline.

That doesn't account for solar heat gained. I mean, by that argument the earth only cools down. Even worse, watt is per second, and a deficit of 12 TW would not be stable.

More importantly, we *know* that the heat of the earth is mostly stable right now, the question is, when will that radioactive decay supply of heat run out?

 

[Clotifoth]

*twitches from the amount of STOOOPID that she's seen in this thread*

Jebus christ on a stick.........the mantle is not liquid, come on everyone , say it after me......the.mantle.is.not.liquid...... Ohhh yeeeaaaahh! Doesn't that make you all feel better now that we've got rid of that assinine idea? There is a small amount of molten material down there, but that's 5% and it's only in the aesthenosphere which is comparatively shallow. The reason why the mantle flows is because of the very special and funky conditions that the rock is under at those depths, it's all manner of dirty-goodness........oooooohhh yeeeaaaaahhhhhh!

*wonders why she's gone all DJ Beerman*

FUCK YEAH, 9TH GRADE EARTH SCIENCE WOOOOO! :mrgreen:

 

[Womble]

Jebus christ on a stick.........the mantle is not liquid, come on everyone , say it after me......the.mantle.is.not.liquid...... Ohhh yeeeaaaahh! Doesn't that make you all feel better now that we've got rid of that assinine idea? There is a small amount of molten material down there, but that's 5% and it's only in the aesthenosphere which is comparatively shallow. The reason why the mantle flows is because of the very special and funky conditions that the rock is under at those depths, it's all manner of dirty-goodness........oooooohhh yeeeaaaaahhhhhh!

I am confused, all references of the mantel I have red describe it as a highly vicourius which would indicate a fluid like substance.

..... I. Am. A. Geologist. I know what i'm talking about on this one.

But anyway, this that i am going to use to back this up....
P wave and S wave velocities - These dip down a bit in the asthenosphere with the 5% melt but then they rocket up as the go deeper into the mantle. The S waves bomb out at the Guttenburg discontinuity (core-mantle boundary) as the outer core is molten. The fact that the body waves speed up is indicative of the mantle being solid. The mantle IS solid, but because of the intense heat and pressure (the core of the planet if hotter than the surface of the sun) and as a result of this over geological time it convects and behaves like a liquid. The Atlantic ocean is growing at about the same rate human finger nails grow.

You got ridiculed because you posted up some super speshul and crap ideas showing up the unknown caverns of your ignorance in this matter. Fair enough if you'd posted up some questions asking what was going on but you didn't, hence the ridicule. Now it might not have been the most adult thing in the world but it was done. You can take it on the chin as a result of something rancidly stupid, or you can whinge like a baby, choice is yours.

Hum"¦ actually if you READ my first post I did. My first post clearly indicated that "I have a hypothesis that is loosely based on some facts." And I go on to say later on "This of course is a very loose Hypothesis"

I then go on to say,

"Secondly is it plausible that we have actually already spelled the doom of the planet by removing basic material for the core of the planet to produce heat with."

I already admitted my ignorance and that it was a shoddy idea to begin with in the very FIRST POST. To then have so many people simply insult me is just ridicules and it shows that the individuals that think it's okay to unleash a torrent of radical and insults for simply asking a few questions and stating some idea's and even asking if something is plausible is beyond childish.

It was as far from a hypothysis, in fact so far as to be a highly misinformed ramble. I did read your first post, and when I did it was almost like one of those cartoon moments when the eyes come out on stalks"¦..i even yelled some manner of abuse at my laptop at reading it, so I'm taking it easy whilst posting.

As for your loony notion of us drilling to the core let me correct you on that creotard level fallacy. The furthest we have ever drilled has been a few km (I can't remember exactly off the top of my head and if you really want to know you can google it yourself), we've not even scratched the surface in terms of drilling, the geothermal gradient is quite steep you see"¦.there's all this heat down there that will last for a few more billion years.

And besides, I'm being witty and creatively inventive with my insults, grow a spine"¦

Also the earth isn't in danger of losing it's internal heat any time soon as it's constantly regenerated due to radioactive decay in the core. I will make an edumacated assumption (given that i am a graduate with a degree in Geology) that once the radioactive decay has seased that we will have some time left before the remains of the heat in the planet bleed away. That will be the least of our worries as by that time we ourselves as a species will be quite dead.....you could say that we will be deader than a can of spam. It may also be interesting to ponder whether or not by the time that happens if the sun has reached its red giant phase and expanded to the sixe that it encompasses our orbit........

I already understood that it was not going to expire any time soon. I do agree that my understanding of scale on a planetary level was never and stupid. However I still think that people acting like a jerk is neither productive nor helpful.

I also amused that since you have a degree in Geology, you assume everyone seems to have known that the core of the planet was being primarily driven by radioactive decay. This is not taught to 16 year olds. May be to 18 year olds doing geology but most defiantly not to someone studying mechanical and electrical engineering when he was at college at 18.

oooOOOooo"¦"¦.who's making the assumptions now?? I made NO assumptions about your knowledge other than you having a huge howling gap"¦. And don't go making assumptions about what goes on in a classroom, because I'll own you on that front too. And regardless of what you think is productive or helpful it is at least entertaining for myself and a few others.

Durakken,

I defy you now to bring me a book that teaches at GCSE level that the core of planet is kept hot because of radioactive decay. I then add a second REALISTIC measure to add that this book also had to be used in geography classes in the UK 8 years ago.
I also defy you to provide me any mathematical examples problem that teaches at 16 years old to calculate heat lose of a planet.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geoscience-Understanding-Geological-Dee-Edwards/dp/0340688432/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255711765&sr=1-2
pwnage"¦

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Geology-Pupils-Work-Book/dp/0050036645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255711795&sr=8-1
double pwnage"¦.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geological-Science-Andrew-Mcleish/dp/0174482213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255721538&sr=1-1
and for shits and giggles triple pwnage"¦..

Now it's been a while since I read that level of text in detail but I certainly remember covering the fact that radio active decay produced the heat that kept the earth going in my a-level. And whilst I've not studied the WJEC's GCSE spec in detail but I'm sure it's there. Oh and I doubt that GCSE Geography will cover it as that's a humanities subject, and you see Geology just happens to be a science. So these books won't be used for teaching Geography (as that's just colouring in) but they will in a Geology lesson.

The best bit is the fact I'm a teacher, so I know what goes on in schools, and I just happened to go to the only place that does ITT for people that have Geology as their science specialism.

I am nether mentally impaired; I am neither throwing peoples heard work away. I from the start asked some very basic questions. I did not even hold on to the idea that this was defiantly happening. I even asked it is event PLAUSIBLE!

So before you continue insulting me for something that is clearly unreasonable on the part of the individuals that feel it's okay to insult someone's lack of knowledge in a specialized field. I want to ask you if it's okay to insult people who ask for information.

Awww"¦"¦.bless"¦..you know I find your lack of initial research disturbing. {10 Womble points to whoeer gets that paraphrased quote}

Kf00kaha -

From my first post I had already stated it was a weak idea that was based on my limited knowlege. I did not realize how many jerks there were and how far they will go when someone puts up an unrealistic idea. I was going to go an read more about it anyway since several people have been really rude about it anyway.

Thanks for being resonable.

Awwwww"¦"¦"¦diddims"¦"¦..

 

[Netheralian]

So I'm a little bored so I thought I would sort out the thermal side of things.

That doesn't account for solar heat gained. I mean, by that argument the earth only cools down. Even worse, watt is per second, and a deficit of 12 TW would not be stable.

I think you are trying to say that the earth wouldn't be in thermal equilibrium. Its not - and has a net deficit of 12TW as per the wiki discussion. However as the earth radiates heat as a black body at approximately 255K (for simplicity lets say that there is no localized variation) it gives off 1.21747E+17 W to space. So if I remove the 12 TW from the equation I have an earth equilibrium temperature of 254.9999937 K (temperature if the earth was in thermal equilibrium (steady state) - 30TW internal + sun)

Just to balance the equation, the average solar heat load coefficient is 1370W/m2 and the earth average albedo is about 0.7 (can vary depending on cloud cover, snow, water etc by a large amount - my text book is upstairs and I'm feeling lazy so I won't give the numbers). This gives an approximate absorbed heat load of 1.21751E+17 W - not far off considering the really simplified calc.

More importantly, we *know* that the heat of the earth is mostly stable right now, the question is, when will that radioactive decay supply of heat run out?

I'm not a geologist but you would have to assume that the radioactive decay has a long half life to still be active (something like Uranium 238 with a 4.5 billion year half life) . But even without the radioactive decay, the surface temperature would be roughly the same as discussed above - although I guess the tectonic movement would cease. Mars anyone?

The time constant of the earth as a very crude approximation can be quickly calculated. Mass of the earth is 5.97E+24 and lets assume a specific thermal capacitance of say 400 J/KgK ~ 2.39E+27 J/K (earth thermal capacitance) with an assumed heat loss (assuming the surface as a sink) of 7.7E6 W/K (based on a core temp of 5700K and a heat loss of 42 TW). That gives me a thermal time constant of 10 trillion years. Shit - I can be wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude here if you like (which I probably am - some simple assumptions just don't work very well) . The significance of the number is that the internal temperature of the earth will decay exponentially and after 1 time constant it will be approximately 36% of its initial temperature and at 3 time constants 5% of its initial temp. I.e. we are talking trillions of years for the earth core to cool.

So it would seem that the time constant of the earth is more than the half life of the heat source - i.e. the heat will be around long after the heater is turned off... Which seems to be consistent with the current thermal balance (i.e. the heat loss is slower than the change in the heat dissipation)

 

[Womble]

*insert Womble confusing Physics*

Awesome, so essentially the sun will toast us with its red giant before the Earth's own heat dies.