Is the Earth's Thermal Output Constant Compared to Other Interstellar Cores?

AI Thread Summary
The Earth's thermal output is approximately 44 TeraWatts, primarily dissipated through conduction and convection, with radiation playing a negligible role. The geothermal heat flux from the core is about 0.09 W/m2, significantly lower than the solar energy absorbed at the surface, which is over 160 W/m2. The total outward energy flow from the Earth includes contributions from convection, latent heat of evaporation, and radiation, totaling around 160 W/m2. Comparatively, the Earth's thermal output is relatively constant but vastly overshadowed by solar radiation. Overall, the geothermal flux is several orders of magnitude less than the energy flows from the Sun.
dirtyd33
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Is the thermal output, or rather electromagnetic output, of the Earth's core relatively constant? and if so, how does it compare to the output of other interstellar cores, say like mercury or the sun?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Which one are you asking? Thermal output or electromagnetic (i.e. radiative) output?

For cores, this is very different. The thermal energy of the core would be dissipated by conduction and convection as well as radiation...The radiative aspect of this transport is actually not efficient since the Earth is opaque.
 
Matterwave said:
The thermal energy of the core would be dissipated by conduction and convection as well as radiation...

My answer to you is yes. I meant the total thermal output of the earth, from the core outward. I want to know if it is fairly constant/ continuous and what might it's capacity be. But now I think of it I'd like to know just the radiative aspect separately, as well.
 
dirtyd33 said:
My answer to you is yes. I meant the total thermal output of the earth, from the core outward. I want to know if it is fairly constant/ continuous and what might it's capacity be. But now I think of it I'd like to know just the radiative aspect separately, as well.

The total rate of thermal energy coming up from below the Earth's surface is about 44 TeraWatts.
  • Pollack, H.N.; S. J. Hurter, and J. R. Johnson (1993), http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93RG01249.shtml, Rev. Geophys. 30 (3): 267–280

This is a heat flow mainly by conduction and convection; radiation has essentially no role below the surface.

This energy flux has only a negligible contribution to the much larger heat fluxes above the surface, which are dominated by radiation from the Sun.

The geothermal heat flux from the core works out to be a bit under 0.09 W/m2, which is negligible by comparison with the energy absorbed from the Sun, which works out to be a bit over 160 W/m2.

The energy absorbed at the surface then flows up through the atmosphere and eventually out into space. The outward energy flows are about 17 W/m2 by convection, 80 W/m2 by latent heat of evaporation, and about 63 W/m2 by radiation (radiation here being the difference between thermal radiation upwards and thermal backradiation from the atmosphere). The geothermal flux is several orders of magnitude less than the energy flows above the surface.

Cheers -- sylas
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...
Back
Top