Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[modest]

(Excerpt) Is there another element that is more likely to make up the earths core? Cold or hot the core of the earth has to be made of a very dense element, iron is the most probable one by orders of magnitude.

 

The Interior of the Earth

 

Earth's Inner Temperature Taken: It's Hot! | LiveScience

 

I am not aware of another material other than Fe that has been said to make up the majority of the earths core....

 

CharlieO is proposing that the earth might have a metallic hydrogen core. This idea runs into many problems. Moontanman rightly points out that Hydrogen even at core pressures is not dense enough to account for earth's total mass. See posts #1, #6, #10, and #58.

 

Pyrotex, I found data relevant to the other thread... in case you're still analyzing the stuff ColdCo sent you:

 

Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure

 

~modest

[CharlieO]

For the record: I usually ask questions and offer alternatives about mainstream science viewpoints which puzzle me. I have no personal theory which has occupied me for years. I gave up seriously researching the possibility of Earth having a hydrogen core in 1980, albeit recently renewed my interest due to a Science Forum post I stumbled across when making a related Google search. I must observe that most of these alternatives I have offered are supported by others and many of their ideas were proposed long before I was born.

 

For example: Lord Rayleigh, 1904 Nobel Prize Laureate and President of the Royal Society, is only one of my recent references for the lack of Earth's internal heat being unable to add to the Heat Flow observed in Earth's surface. Lord Rayleigh and others can be seen, at least by me, as supporting the possibility that Earth is actually cold inside. Now I don't know if Earth is cold or hot inside. I once tried to prove solar radiation was the primary source for Heat Flow and radiation just from within crustal rocks was more than adequate to provide the balance of observed measurements; leaving Heat Flow from beneath Earth's crust insignificant if not totally absent.

 

Still think the High Arctic Heat Flow study would make a good Master's Thesis.

 

I must also apologize for being too quick to anger when insulted. By way of explanation: I spend my days caring for my invalid wife 24/7 and it is mind numbing to say the least; so I am not in a good humor at day's end. I will try to compose, late at night as usual, then wait a day to review and post. Might make for more socially acceptable scientific presentations.

 

The popular assumptions I asked about and alternatives I've offered on Science Forum are related to classes I've taken, observations I've made, research I've done and articles I've read, most dating from an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a graduate degree in geology and beyond, 1968 to 1978. I finally wrote and self-published a monograph on them, copyright 1979, which attracted no attention and I effectively ceased work on the subject in 1980. However, a copy sent to Stephen Solter at Cornell appears to have been utilized in a book by Dr. Tom Gold, Stephen's associate: THE DEEP EARTH GAS HYPOTHESIS, copyright 1980. I took this to be a compliment.

 

It must be stressed that nearly all the ideas I have expressed are not unique or original with me; just mainly concepts about which I am still both puzzled and curious. Others have made similar observations, asked similar questions and offered similar alternatives. For example, Neil Christianson has been questioning the Hot Iron Core since 1972 and published EARTH HAS A COLD HEART in 1989. I recently corresponded with him and found he experienced much the same rejection as I did. I have since found many others with similar views. Comforting.

 

However, I am still drawn to Science Forum, insults and all, since I have learned from both the rejections and explanations; especially those of Modest and Pyrotex. Accordingly, I have both changed some of my views as well as realized there are some alternatives which can't easily be dismissed and appear even more logical; to me. When given lemons, I make lemonade.

[stereologist]

Again you mention Rayleigh. In 1904 no one is thinking about plate tectonics. At that time no one understands how the sun shines. At that time no one understands the age of the solar system. At that time no one knows much about 70% of the earth's surface, i.e. the ocean bottoms. The South Pole was not visited until 1911.

 

So I really can't see how a position taken by Rayleigh is relevant to the discussion. Rayleigh did not have the information we have today. Today we have a better understanding because over 100 years have passed since 1904. Technological improvements have made it possible to collect better information faster.

[RevOfAllRevs]

We have no evidence the earth containing metallic hydrogen. I don't think it would be possible due to the pressures etc required to make the metal from our lightest element. However Jupiter and some of the gas giants in our solar system may have an abundance of this material. In Jupiter the metallic hydrogen is thought to surround a core of rocky material that is something like 10 to 15 Earth-masses.

 

In the phase transition region, this is where liquid hydrogen is heated to a certain temperature it becomes metal like (metallic). The temp is not certain but is guessed to be in the range of 10,000 K (kelvins) and the pressure is 200 GPa. The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K with a interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa. So considering that its highly unlikely that the earth possesses any metallic hydrogen, and even if it did the material would be hot not cold.

 

: }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Again you mention Rayleigh. In 1904 no one is thinking about plate tectonics. At that time no one understands how the sun shines. At that time no one understands the age of the solar system. At that time no one knows much about 70% of the earth's surface, i.e. the ocean bottoms. The South Pole was not visited until 1911.

 

So I really can't see how a position taken by Rayleigh is relevant to the discussion. Rayleigh did not have the information we have today. Today we have a better understanding because over 100 years have passed since 1904. Technological improvements have made it possible to collect better information faster.

 

 

Hi Stereologist. I think that Charlie was talking about Lord Rayleigh's work where he developed the linear stability theory for the onset of convection.

 

regards.

 

; }>

[modest]

In the phase transition region, this is where liquid hydrogen is heated to a certain temperature it becomes metal like (metallic). The temp is not certain but is guessed to be in the range of 10,000 K (kelvins) and the pressure is 200 GPa. The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K with a interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa. So considering that its highly unlikely that the earth possesses any metallic hydrogen, and even if it did the material would be hot not cold.

 

If you're going to quote wiki you should use quote tags and link your source. Earth's core pressure is in the order of 300 GPa which is sufficient for metallic hydrogen. As I said in my last post and Moontanman said in his post before that, it is the density which argues against a metallic hydrogen core.

 

It would also help if you read the thread.

 

~modest

[RevOfAllRevs]

If you're going to quote wiki you should use quote tags and link your source. Earth's core pressure is in the order of 300 GPa which is sufficient for metallic hydrogen. As I said in my last post and Moontanman said in his post before that, it is the density which argues against a metallic hydrogen core.

 

It would also help if you read the thread.

 

~modest

 

Thanks for your speculative response. I resent the implication, because it is wrong. I read some material both on and off the net, and then wrote in my own words from three of four sources. Quote tags would be incorrect because it was not a direct quote. The pressure at the earth core EXCEEDS 300GPa please be accurate if you are going to nit pick my posts. I agree with the density remark. Forgive me but I do not have a photographic memory of everything I have learned and have to refresh my memory now and again. And tell me do you read every reply before posting every time? Lets try to keep in the spirit of friendly debate?

 

; {?>

 

entire quote

 

"Above the layer of metallic hydrogen lies a transparent interior atmosphere of liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen, with the gaseous portion extending downward from the cloud layer to a depth of about 1,000 km.[24] Instead of a clear boundary or surface between these different phases of hydrogen, there is probably a smooth gradation from gas to liquid as one descends.[31][32] This smooth transition happens whenever the temperature is above the critical temperature, which for hydrogen is only 33 K[33] (see hydrogen).

 

The temperature and pressure inside Jupiter increase steadily toward the core. At the phase transition region where liquid hydrogen—heated beyond its critical point—becomes metallic, it is believed the temperature is 10,000 K and the pressure is 200 GPa. The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa.[24]"

[modest]

I resent the implication, because it is wrong.

 

I'm sorry to have ruffled any feathers. After reading your post I went to wiki's Jupiter page and ended up reading the same sentence word for word. I guess that kind of thing is probably more common than I would think. Actually, when you sign up for an account at wikipedia it tells you that your work will be plagiarized, so it probably is very common.

 

In any case, you make a good point. You spliced together a couple of sentences in a way that would be difficult to put quote tags around it, so my comment was unnecessary.

 

Lets try to keep in the spirit of friendly debate?

 

Nothing I said was unfriendly, and I don't think we're having a debate.

 

And tell me do you read every reply before posting every time?

 

I'm trying to be nice about this. You've made 25 posts in this thread. If you were to read the first few pages of the thread you will see how they have been a bit off topic. I'm not trying to fault you for this, it's just I'm sure that there's a lot you stand to offer the thread if you knew where it stands.

 

I agree with the density remark. Forgive me but I do not have a photographic memory of everything I have learned and have to refresh my memory now and again.

 

I understand. I addressed this 2 posts ago:

 

(Excerpt) Is there another element that is more likely to make up the earths core? Cold or hot the core of the earth has to be made of a very dense element, iron is the most probable one by orders of magnitude.

 

The Interior of the Earth

 

Earth's Inner Temperature Taken: It's Hot! | LiveScience

 

I am not aware of another material other than Fe that has been said to make up the majority of the earths core....

 

CharlieO is proposing that the earth might have a metallic hydrogen core. This idea runs into many problems. Moontanman rightly points out that Hydrogen even at core pressures is not dense enough to account for earth's total mass. See posts

#1

,

#6

,

#10

, and

#58

.

 

Pyrotex, I found data relevant to the other thread... in case you're still analyzing the stuff ColdCo sent you:

 

Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure

 

~modest

 

The pressure at the earth core EXCEEDS 300GPa please be accurate if you are going to nit pick my posts.

 

I will do my best to be accurate. According to PREM model, the pressure from the boundary of the outer core (R = 3480) to the center of the inner core (R = 0) increases roughly linearly from 135.75 to 363.85 GPa. It reaches 300 GPa at R = 1600 which is not far outside the inner core boundary.

 

Google book -- Allen's astrophysical quantities

 

I believe my comment: "Earth's core pressure is in the order of 300 GPa" is accurate.

 

~modest

[RevOfAllRevs]

I'm sorry to have ruffled any feathers. After reading your post I went to wiki's Jupiter page and ended up reading the same sentence word for word. I guess that kind of thing is probably more common than I would think. Actually, when you sign up for an account at wikipedia it tells you that your work will be plagiarized, so it probably is very common.

 

In any case, you make a good point. You spliced together a couple of sentences in a way that would be difficult to put quote tags around it, so my comment was unnecessary.

 

 

 

Nothing I said was unfriendly, and I don't think we're having a debate.

 

 

 

I'm trying to be nice about this. You've made 25 posts in this thread. If you were to read the first few pages of the thread you will see how they have been a bit off topic. I'm not trying to fault you for this, it's just I'm sure that there's a lot you stand to offer the thread if you knew where it stands.

 

 

 

I understand. I addressed this 2 posts ago:

 

 

 

 

I will do my best to be accurate. According to PREM model, the pressure from the boundary of the outer core (R = 3480) to the center of the inner core (R = 0) increases roughly linearly from 135.75 to 363.85 GPa. It reaches 300 GPa at R = 1600 which is not far outside the inner core boundary.

 

Google book -- Allen's astrophysical quantities

 

I believe my comment: "Earth's core pressure is in the order of 300 GPa" is accurate.

 

~modest

 

Thank you for extending the olive branch I would like to reciprocate. And will attempt to be more accurate etc in the future. Your comment is accurate enough for me, sorry for the nit picking, with our new attempt at civility I am sure it bodes well for future discussions.

 

; }>

[CharlieO]

CraigD: In regard to being penalized with an infraction for not quoting a published reference, I sincerely believe I provided a valid reference supporting my claim that abandoned mines become cooler with depth. This was provided to Science Forum members two days before the 'infraction,' which can be found in another post you may have missed:

 

Please consider the fact that I was once the owner-operator of a mine, until the Federal meddling made it unprofitable to continue: MSHA, BLM, OSHA, EPA, etc. Meeting all the different regulations eventually made mining too expensive. At one point I was featured in a nationally known publication for my mining activities, also a member of the Western Small Miners Association and Mineral Mining Society.

 

I also served on the Open Space Board of a county known for mining; albeit now better known for tourism. Been in open pit mines a mile deep, deep lead mines, deeper gold and silver mines. I probably have far more experience with hard rock mining and subsurface geology than the detractors who write as if they know so much.

 

So when I write deep WORKING mines get hotter with depth, I'm writing from first hand experience. When I write some once intensely heated working mines, now long ABANDONED, get colder with depth, I'm also writing from first hand experience. The difference is clearly the absence of workers, their operating equipment and lighting.

 

“(I have) been there” should be all that is needed for my first claim. Please forgive the arrogance, but I was once a recognized authority on abandoned mines growing cooler with depth and their dangers. In the past others came to ME for information. I venture to claim I have been inside more abandoned mines than any member of the Science Forum, sometimes to consider buying same or appraising them for others to invest in or (mainly) to survey tunnels and shafts for possible closure at taxpayer expense (Mineral Severance Tax) and/or installation of Bat Grates; These allows bats to hibernate in the now cooler but stable mine temperatures they require for that purpose. Abandoned Mine Lands

 

The posted explanation in support of my claim that abandoned mines become cooler seems clear to me. What more do you need?

 

In addition, I can report first hand that WORKING mines become very heated. Much of this is due to the effort of the workers, heat from their operating equipment, intense, localized, albeit temporary heat from the use of explosives and constant heat from MSHA & OSHA required lighting. Air temperatures in active working mines I know about personally have exceeded 44C/111F. And the walls were hot to the touch.

 

Temperatures also varied with type of mineral being mined, number of workers, total amount of heat energy (BTU) released by operating equipment, use of explosives, total watts of lighting, etc. Some shifts claimed their air temperatures probably reached 50C/122F before they had to cease operations, but I wasn't there when that happened, and, frankly, I doubt it. I do know lots of water and salt pills were used up.

 

Air temperatures in many, but not all, long abandoned mines I know about personally have fallen over time to as low as 6C/42F with claims of ice forming on their floors in the lowest depths; 0C/32F. And the walls were cold to the touch. I was not able to verify any of the lowest tunnels being below freezing because so much hydrogen [there's that word again] based compounds had seeped into lower levels (ventilation long disabled) and I lacked the necessary breathing apparatus. [Hydrogen based gases have also killed many trespassers who ventured into abandoned mines. There are over 23,000 abandoned mines in Colorado alone and barely over 6,000 have been secured to date.

 

Victims of mining accidents have encountered deadly odorless gasses, fell down holes that opened under their weight, drowned in near-freezing pools of water at the bottom of shafts, and were buried in unpredictable cave-ins. Abandoned Mines

 

Another issue, which is related to the dangers within abandoned mines, is Radon gas emissions. These are measured in picoCuries per Litre of ambient air: pCi/L. Some abandoned mines will have pCi/L readings above 600, whereas active mines are much lower, albeit sometimes not low enough to be safe for extended working conditions. Above 4pCi/L is considered harmful to health, especially for smokers. In the latter, radon will adhere to the carbon particles trapped in their lungs and cause lung cancers. Many homes have radon in excess of 4pCi/L in their basements, where children often play; children being to most easily affected by radon. The Dangers Of Radon Gas Poisoning | LIVESTRONG.COM

 

From my experience with mine safety, I have continued to test for radon over the years in the basements of homes where we have lived. I still own an electronic radon gas detector (ain't cheap) and have long provided a free service to members of my church and friends for the testing of their basement environments; sometimes resulting with dire indications of them being extremely unsafe. I ended up sealing the basement in my town home as if it were a swimming pool; to prevent any intrusion by radon gas from the outside soil. As a side issue, I must encourage all SF members to consider testing their homes for radon.

 

Awareness of the danger of radon is growing. Currently, many counties and cites now require new homes to have radon abatement systems installed before a certificate of occupancy will be issued. Others are growing in number which at the least require a radon test before a home can be sold, new or used. This should be common knowledge among real estate agents [all should be aware]. See above published reference.

 

At any rate, I can state with some authority that many abandoned mines in which I have had personal experience do in fact cool off with time when not actively worked and some become very dangerous because their hydrogen compounds and radon gas emissions are no longer being ventilated, as well as for hidden physical dangers.

 

Does anyone still believe abandoned mines don't get colder over time, especially the member who wrote "It is all Bull ****?" Failure to apologize will say something for his character.

 

I am also confident some SF members are worthy authorities on other subjects. Do they also have to reference some unknown person in some obscure publication to qualify their personal opinions as well?

[RevOfAllRevs]

Apparently the bestowing of an infraction is an arbitrarily arrived at decision. You may think you have provided good cause and support for your claims, but in fact you may receive an infraction anyway. These decisions are apparently arrived at behind closed doors without you having a say so in the matter. Thank God our court system doesn't work as judge jury and executioner.

 

; }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Does anyone still believe abandoned mines don't get colder over time, especially the member who wrote "It is all Bull ****?" Failure to apologize will say something for his character.

 

I am not qualified to answer this question except to say that maybe the depth of the mines have some bearing on temp. It seems like a medium deep mine in this area has a low temp of about 52 degrees F. However with depth the temp. of deeper mines increase. Why would you think that if the mines are active or abandoned make any difference with temp? The equipment etc?

 

; {>

[stereologist]

What is happening here is a discussion of temperature at depth. One of the ways in which this is evidenced is by placing people at depth in mines. CharlieO claims that older mines get colder over time. He suggests that this means that the high temperature of working deep mines is due to the presence of man, the machines, lights, etc. and not the ground. He also claims that mines cool off over time.

 

CharlieO I say claim although you might use the word 'state'. I am simply referring to your position on the issue.

 

I suggest that this is likely to be partially true. Mines are hot when first worked. CharlieO and most people on this site agree with that. CharlieO claims that human activity is responsible for the temperature. I disagree with that position. Then CharlieO presents first hand evidence that abandoned mines are cooler. CharlieO claims that the lack of human activity is the reason for the cooling off.

 

Mines are not the only way that we know that the temperature increases with depth. Drilling deep into the earth also shows increasing temperature. Oil and gas come out of the ground hot. Hot springs indicate the presence of higher temperatures underground. Rock bursts in mines is partially attributed to the cooling of the mine walls. All sides of mined rocks are warm, not just the side towards the mine.

 

The observation that mines are hot and cool off does not mean that the earth is cool. Rocks are poor conductors of heat. Air is not. Air can transfer heat through convection. Heat can be more quickly removed by air than it can be introduced by the rock.

 

Mining is a big operation. Big operations have research groups just like other areas of research. There are conferences with papers and presentations on the subject. There is a U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium.

 

This is a link to the 12th symposium:

12th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium | June 9-11, 2008 | Reno, Nevada USA

 

Here is a paper from that symposium:

 

http://www.smenet.org/uvc/mineventpapers/pdf/031.pdf

 

From the abstract of that paper:

The four major heat sources are the conversion of potential energy into thermal energy as air descends vertical airways (autocompression), mining machinery, strata (geothermal gradient) and pressure generators (i.e. primary/auxiliary fans).

 

This is a typical paper.

 

Here is another paper:

http://www.smenet.org/uvc/mineventpapers/pdf/030.pdf

 

And from that abstract:

Geothermal heat and heat from autocompression will be found in all mining situations in varying degrees depending on geothermal gradient and surface temperature, however, the use of equipment and blasting may be streamlined to reduce the underground heat load.

 

So the industry, in technical journals, states clearly that the ground is hot and gets hotter with depth. Deep mines are hot and there are many factors to consider. A hot earth is one of them.

[CharlieO]

Stereologist writes: What is happening here is a discussion of temperature at depth.

 

It appears to me what we have here is an interesting display of ignorance and dogmatic refusal to even consider any alternative view of any factor which might, repeat, might bring into question the assumption of there being intense heat within Earth's core. Sadly, it appears he is joined by some with similar beliefs which appear to resent any questions being raised about their personal beliefs without some negative reaction such as “Its All Bull ****.”

 

Stereologist writes: One of the ways in which this is evidenced is by placing people at depth in mines.

 

Unfortunately, this is deceptive and exhibits his ignorance of the manner in which mine temperatures are recorded. It is not the personal testimony of individuals inside mines, which I stated I doubted, but the direct observations of thermometers, either wet or dry bulb, at specific locations or the remote readings of situated thermocouples which are used to obtain evidence of temperatures at various depths.

 

Stereologist writes: CharlieO claims that older mines get colder over time.

 

Again deceptively inaccurate. If you are going to quote me, please report accurately. In several posts, I effectively wrote that many ABANDONED mines become much colder than working mines; in which I have first hand experience. As for OLDER, I would have never claimed such a thing. I well aware that some working mines are far older than recently abandoned mines. Some in England date from the days of Roman occupation and appear to have become more heated over time due to the introduction of more watts of lighting, higher powered equipment with more BTUs and the increased compression heating of additional ventilation air.

 

Stereologist writes: He (meaning me) suggests that this means that the high temperature of working deep mines is due to the presence of man, the machines, lights, etc. and NOT THE GROUND.

 

This is deceptively false. I have never mentioned the possibility that some of the heat within working deep mines does NOT come from the ground. In fact, in a previous post, I stated that Heat Flow radiating from the ground IS a very real factor. Something with which I have personal experience in the past. Also, something no SF member has indicated they have done; which obviously includes Stereologist.

 

Stereologist writes: He (meaning me) also claims that mines cool off over time.

 

Again, deceptively inaccurate. I have claimed many ABANDONED mines cool off over time. I have also claimed that WORKING mine may become more heated over time. See above misquoted claim.

 

Meanwhile, not wishing to be rude or offensive, but I resent Stereologist's apparently deliberate distortions of my writings, as I'm sure others would be as well if he did the same to them. I don't know what is to be gained by misleading others, perhaps this is his way to curry favor by “preaching to the choir.” I feel this possibly sloppy or deliberate misquoting is more worthy of an infraction than any failure by someone else unable to either comprehend or give credence to my first hand experience when I explained how I personally found temperatures in many abandoned mines to become cooler with depth and working mines to be intensely heated.

 

Regretfully, I don't have the time to share what little I know about hard rock mining, but its obviously more than most SF members will ever know. I can say with authority that interior heating and cooling factors in hard rock mines are far more complex than some want to believe. Although some apparently resent to just being made aware of physical factors other than the dogmatically accepted concept of mines getting hotter with depth proves Earth is intensely heated inside.

 

Again, I don't know for sure if Earth's interior is intensely heat or extremely cold, but neither does anyone else, for sure. There are many assumptions, some of which seem very logical, some others only seem to fit situations which may be contrived, but, whether hot or cold, none of them are direct measurements. That's the fact.

 

My position is, I still don't know what is the real truth and I'm still puzzled because so many unmeasurable parameters are being promoted as proving what may be just an assumption is correct, when, in fact, many parameters can be interpreted differently, depending on one's prior education and personal beliefs. I find Heat Flow to be extremely complex and to include many physical factors: solar radiation, radioactive decay, chemical reactions, localized geothermal processes, recent volcanic activity, subsurface activity, Earth tides, as well as the possibility of Earth having a heated interior.

 

Therefore, with all due respect to those who choose to believe a simplistic 'mainstream science fact' without question and detest even the consideration of any possible alternative, I believe there is the possibility that interior heating may be only insignificant or even totally absent in the Heat Flow measured on Earth's surface.

 

Stereologist offered references from mining industry conferences, which he appears to believe will prove I am wrong about geothermal heating in mines. However, a review of his references and many others financed by various mining organizations, including the Colorado School of Mines, have yet to study Heat Flow within ABANDONED mines. At least I haven't found one. If any SF member can find one, please add to the discussion something of more relevance than references wherein I mainly agree.

 

Stereologist did provide one reference of interest:

 

A review of heat issues in underground metalliferous mines

3.1 Geothermal Gradient

Generally speaking rocks within 50m (165 feet)of the earth’s surface maintain a temperature equal to that of the average air temperature. Between 50m and 100m (315 feet) the gradient is variable because it is affected by atmospheric changes and circulating ground water. Below that zone, temperature almost always increases with depth.

 

However, the rate of increase with depth (geothermal gradient) varies considerably with both tectonic setting and the thermal properties of the rock. Typically the geothermal gradient of the upper crust is between about 15°C/km (59F/3,250 feet) and 40°C/km (104F/3,250 feet).

 

http://www.smenet.org/uvc/mineventpapers/pdf/030.pdf

 

Unfortunately, the above general statement is only a “boiler-plate” repeat of averaged studies over past years; no current research in known. It also is false in that Heat Flow or Geothermal Gradient in rocks can vary greatly from ambient air temperatures. While generally accurate as to the average of some measurements recorded below surfaces in the past, I can't find any reference to Heat Flow studies made INSIDE mines, working or abandoned.

 

The fact remains that most, if not all, measurements were also observed in boreholes recently drilled into the surface. This has compromised the data. Just the drilling of rock to place instruments within a borehole in various types of rocks can't help but create different temperatures which can't help but influence the observed data. Stereologist supports this problem when he states that rock is a good insulator and I agree that most rock would retain the heat from the drilling for some time.

 

However, long term studies show a cooling off of boreholes with depth over time. I must wonder how Stereologist or Moontanman will react if I claim, I wrote IF, that ABANDONED oil well bottom hole temperatures [bHT] grow colder over time.

 

What if I claim, I wrote IF, there are many geysers which erupt with very cold water and others also vent hydrogen based compounds, some of which are poisonous and have killed many unwary animals and humans? Would anyone really care? Does it matter to any discussion about Earth's internal heat?

 

While NO ONE has yet offered any reference which proves ABANDONED mines DON'T cool down over time, Sterelolgist and Moontanman and others appear to believe they have 'won the day' with references which ONLY provide evidence of temperatures within WORKING mines as being a serious industrial problem; with which I fully agree and have so noted previously.

 

So what? Since this is exactly what I have discussed in my previous post(s), why do they even make that effort? I have already indicated I not only agree completely with working mines being hot, but have the first hand experience and personal knowledge they lack. Puzzling. Remember, I was once a member of the mining industry and I, dare to speculate, have read more on the subject than any SF member.

 

Are abandoned mines a problem? Consider the BLM reports there are 14,000 active mines nationwide just on BLM lands, with an estimated 500,000 other mines now abandoned. Abandoned Mine Lands

 

There are over 23,000 known abandoned mines in Colorado alone and barely over 6,000 have been secured to date. Victims of mining accidents have encountered deadly odorless gasses, fell down holes that opened under their weight, drowned in near-freezing pools of water at the bottom of shafts, and were buried in unpredictable cave-ins. Abandoned Mines

 

Did anyone note the fact that the State of Colorado warned of NEAR-FREEZING pools of water at the BOTTOM of shafts? Does anyone want to dispute the fact that 10 western states make similar claims about abandoned mines; Nevada having the most, with an estimated 200,000? Plus, the cooling of abandoned mines is something of which I have first hand experience. If all this doesn't convince others that my claim of ABANDONED mines growing cooler over time is valid, I don't know what else to offer.

 

So far no SF member has been able to provide a single reference claiming ABANDONED mines don't cool down over time. Is the dogmatic belief that all mines become hotter with depth so ingrained among SF members as to include the rejection of reasonable logic, first hand testimony from an experienced participant and official verification?

 

I pray this is the end of a meaningless dispute over my abandoned mines grow cooler statement.

 

How about Heat Flow studies which don't give much support for Earth's interior being intensely heated?

 

Seems as if a bright young geology student got the idea that measuring Heat Flow might be a way to identify the subsurface location of unknown caves. So he made Heat Flow measurements in an area of limestone topography and did find less Heat Flow in a few areas. Drilling even disclosed a few unknown caves, albeit near the surface. However, Heat Flow measurements did NOT detect any caves much deeper than 12 feet and it is known there were many caves in the region.

 

I am personally aware that Heat Flows above enormous and much deeper caverns, especially those in New Mexico, where I was a resident during testing by university students from Soccoro, failed to find any difference between locations directly above these caverns and locations above areas of solid rock; extending to Earth's mantle.

 

If one is questioning the lack of heat from within Earth's interior, this lack of difference might be attributed to the possibility than the Heat Flow being measured came more from solar and radioactive factors than any deeper factor, like Earth's interior being intensely heated. If one believes, without question, that Heat Flow is a valid indication of heat coming from Earth's interior, then they can conveniently assume heat will pass through the open air chambers of caverns between the mantle and Earth's surface with the same rate of flow as solid rock. See Stereologist's claim about rock and air insulation.

 

Other Heat Flow studies show a general agreement with altitude, INVERSELY to the distance from Earth's supposedly heated mantle; with all its assumed molten magma. Measurements some 12,500 feet below sea level are very low; ranging between 2 to 10 mW/m^2. Measurements around 12,500 feet above sea level can be higher by a factor of 60 or more. In California, Heat Flows near the coast can range between 10 to 40 mW/m^2, yet be 600+ mW/m^2 a short distance inland, at a much higher altitude. IF the Earth is intensely heated inside and Heat Flow is some indication of that factor, why isn't Heat Flow greater closer to Earth's mantle?

 

After all, isn't that where molten magma can be found, waiting to boil up to the surface? Yea, right.

 

Again, my references are from the current global heat flow data (24,774 observations at 20,201 sites) as maintained by the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC) of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI).

[Moontanman]

Coldco, you keep beating us over the head with your experience and expertise. Well I have some expertise as well, I am an expert in fishes, I keep them breed them, I collect them i study their environments, I pretty much have a huge amount of knowledge about them. Now if I claim that fish eggs can with stand dessication and a dry pond can absolutely with out a doubt hatch out fish when filled with rain water would you believe me? If I said if a dry pond is filled with water fish automatically spring up would you believe me? I can provide links to prove this (more than you've done) I can go on to claim that no matter where a dry pond if it is filled with water it will indeed sprout fishes. Remember I am an expert on this and I can provide sources to prove this would you automatically believe me?

 

Well a similar situation exists with your "experience and expertise" except that so far you own links do not support you, the last link you gave contradicts you in the first page. While I on the other hand have provided links that show the Earth is mega hot inside, on the oder of 10,000 degrees at the center. I provided the links but you choose to ignore them. Then you claim we are somehow treating you and your "expertise" unfairly. I just posted a news brief about using abandoned mines as source of geothermal heat. My last link in this tread showed that by using seismic waves the temps inside the earth can be directly measured.

 

Earth's Inner Temperature Taken: It's Hot! | LiveScience

 

while your link shows you are misleading us

 

http://www.smenet.org/uvc/mineventpapers/pdf/030.pdf

 

3 Major Sources of Underground Heat

3.1 Geothermal Gradient

Generally speaking rocks within 50m of the earth’s

surface maintain a temperature equal to that of the

average air temperature. Between 50m and 100m the

gradient is variable because it is affected by atmospheric

changes and circulating ground water. Below that zone,

temperature almost always increases with depth.

However, the rate of increase with depth (geothermal

gradient) varies considerably with both tectonic setting

and the thermal properties of the rock. Typically the

geothermal gradient of the upper crust is between about

15°C/km and 40°C/km.

 

Human activity is shown to be responsible for only 14% of the heat in mines.

 

I see no reason to take your "expertise" seriously any longer. You sir are using isolated incidents to support your own pet theory which has been tested and rejected.

[Cold-co]

Moonboy:

You keep keep addressing CharlieO as Cold-co; we are two different individuals. Me suspects we are communicating with a retard.

[Moontanman]

CharlieO, I apologize for mixing yours and Cold-co's names up, please forgive me, being a retard is hard work..... Being a jackass is apparently quite easy.....