What do you think about my theory of global warming? I hope that you understood well?

Question

Everybody thinks that the global heating is centered in the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near surface air and oceans in recent decades, but how it increases this temperature?
If the heating comes from the outside as they say, that would increase in also the rains proportionally and we had spoken of drought these last years.
Reason why the only logical explanation is that this heat comes from within Earth. If the Earth’s mantle is directly underneath crust, (it’s smaller in the oceanic zones) In the mantle, temperatures range between 500°C-900°C (932°F-1,652°F the zone of contact with the crust. how the heat climbs to the surface, if it finds more "obstacles" in their way less heat will arrive at the surface:
- In the oceanic zones the mantle is smaller and the temperature is smaller and also it crosses cold water levels so when it arrives at level zero its temperature is not sufficient to evaporate the water to form clouds and rain.
- In the terrestrial zones it is where at the end of century XIX the heat has been increased what it has happened in the crust in that time?
En 1859 Edwin Drake perforated the first oil well in Pensilvania.
The storage of Carbon in the fossil deposits (coal, petroleum and natural gas) supposes a reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmospheric levels. If they free the fósil deposits the amount of carbon dioxide of the atmosphere is greater and we added to it that the possibilities of recycled are reduced when diminishing the wooded mass and vegetal.
the warm of the interior trying to arrive at the surface and it finds with the fossil deposits. They retain that heat so that it does not leave to the surface. These fossil deposits do not have oxygen like the carbon dioxide that are used in the extinguishers,and other thermal insulators like plastic, fabric, etc. They are derived from these fossil deposits and in addition to change to these thermal insulators by other elements more conductors of the heat, as in the case of petroleum that they introduce water, the water carrys hotter to the surface. This heat arrives at the atmosphere where they are the Greenhouse effect gases. The atmosphere retains more heat and it still gives back to the Earth more energy causing a imbalance in the radiactive balance. It casuses air masses of different temperatures take place forts rains and wind (hurricanes, etc.), and electric activity
We do not forget the tectonic plates, the increase of heat causes that there is a greater vulcanism and seismicity, and they move with more facility so they are producing more earthquakes, tidal waves (tsunami), volcanic eruptions, etc. They release more heat of interior. the governments are dedicated to prove their armament in the most unstable or fragile zones like France that bombs its atoll where it is the crater of the meteorite.

Answer 1

Volcanoes release vast quantities of CO2 and heat and much outgassing of CO2 and methane occurs. There is clearly heat moving from the interior of the earth toward the surface. The problem is that it isn't that much heat radiated. The soil and rock acts as an insulator and heat consequently doesn't transfer very fast. You do have some interesting ideas. Those are quicker mechanisms for heat transfer but I don't think enough.

Answer 2

I don't buy it. In order to explain why we have global warming you first need to explain why we had Pleistocene Glaciation, and I don't see this anywhere in your argument. The fact is that during most of the Earth's history, glaciation, even at the polar regions, is non-existent. I have heard of some theories relating "global cooling" to the uplift of the Himalaya Mountains, either by changing global wind patterns or by sequestering carbon dioxide in limestone. There can be no doubt that global warming is taking place, at the end of the Wisconsonian Stage of the Pleistocene, a mere 11,000 years ago, there was 10,000 feet of ice on top of Wisconsin. There can also be no doubt that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels has increased the rate of warming. However, the input from the mantle has little or nothing to do with global warming.

Answer 3

I would like to suggest that you watch the DVD entitled "An Inconvenient Truth". It won the oscar for the best documentary of the year. It is all about global warming and has a great deal of information that would be very helpful to you. I think it would clarify some of the points that you are confused on in your theory. You can rent it at any video rental place. I showed this to my classes and they were enthralled. You will find it very interesting and informative. Al Gore, our former Vice-President is the author and narrator. It is NOT political.

EARTH/SPACE TEACHER

Answer 4

You need to back up your assertions with data, calculations, and some testable predictions before you can call that a theory. You also need to demonstrate, quantitatively, what's wrong with the current greenhouse gas theory. But I rather suspect that your thermal conductivity idea would fail even a rough reasonableness test.

And your claim about rainfall is a strawman argument. There is plenty of theory to explain how global warming causes redistribution of precipitation.

Answer 5

Then how would something like an El Nino affect all this?

Admittedly, the mechanics of global warming are still a puzzlement, but does the human footprint in all this speed it along?

Answer 6

if I thought about it hard enough I could probably laugh my way out of existance. or what about the first great meteor that hit the earth & made the dinosaurs extinct, what if it had missed us would dinosaurs still rule the earth today. or would man have made them extinct.
What if... is a brilliant way to ignore the damage that we are causing to our eco system the earth is a very fragile place to live ignoring this fact and instigating rumors and lies in order to deflect from the issue is stupid and irresponsible what if ...you got our head out of the sand and taste the coffee. or you could write a science fiction novel instead...
courtesy of South Wales resource recyclers

Answer 7

I'm quite certain that if you did some extensive research you would not have the same theory you just presented here.

Answer 8

Your theory is as valid as any other theory that attempts to explain or predict global weather patterns. Not enough is known to draw any scientifically proven conclusions.

Answer 9

Nice try.

Next.