<p>It depends what your practical purposes are. Maybe you can treat it as 0. But in general, no, because it is not closed, due to geothermal heat flux, and anthropogenic imbalances. Also, even if assuming 0, that would be over long time scales and integrated over the earth surface. There are spatial heterogeneities. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-08T13:35:26.597Z
Hey mankoff: True that. I removed the meteorological tag, and clarified the question: I'm interested in timescales that are long enough to make the seasonal cycle (and perhaps also intra-decadal variability) irrelevant. And I'm interested in the soil to only ~10m deep, max.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-08T15:10:26.370Z
I think there are still large spatial variations. There will be local net- and net+ depending on the local groundcover - desert v. rainforest v. urban, areas with groundwater flowing up/down, etc.
mankoff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-08T13:29:27.843Z
2015-01-08T17:35:56.603Z
2015-01-08T17:35:56.603Z
mankoff
<p>In the context of the land surface, the ground absorbs heat from radiation (also some times from precipitation and advection), and releases heat through evapotranspiration, advection and radiation, and run-off. If it were a closed system, you would expect the net heat loss/gain to be zero (at least on a reasonably long time scale, that irons out daily and seasonal cycles, and noise). However, there is also heat from the mantle to consider, and also heat conduction to the oceans.</p>

<p>Are there other avenues for heat loss or gain from the soil? Are any of these significant in a climatological context? Or should the total heat flux into (or out of) the ground from the atmosphere be equal to zero (or close enough for practical purposes, over time scales longer than a year)?</p>

<climatology><land-surface>
Should total ground heat flux be 0?
naught101
# Should total ground heat flux be 0?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-08)

In the context of the land surface, the ground absorbs heat from radiation (also some times from precipitation and advection), and releases heat through evapotranspiration, advection and radiation, and run-off. If it were a closed system, you would expect the net heat loss/gain to be zero (at least on a reasonably long time scale, that irons out daily and seasonal cycles, and noise). However, there is also heat from the mantle to consider, and also heat conduction to the oceans.

Are there other avenues for heat loss or gain from the soil? Are any of these significant in a climatological context? Or should the total heat flux into (or out of) the ground from the atmosphere be equal to zero (or close enough for practical purposes, over time scales longer than a year)?

**Tags:** climatology, land-surface


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-01-08. Score: 4

It depends what your practical purposes are. Maybe you can treat it as 0. But in general, no, because it is not closed, due to geothermal heat flux, and anthropogenic imbalances. Also, even if assuming 0, that would be over long time scales and integrated over the earth surface. There are spatial heterogeneities.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Hey username_1: True that. I removed the meteorological tag, and clarified the question: I'm interested in timescales that are long enough to make the seasonal cycle (and perhaps also intra-decadal variability) irrelevant. And I'm interested in the soil to only ~10m deep, max.  
> **username_1**: I think there are still large spatial variations. There will be local net- and net+ depending on the local groundcover - desert v. rainforest v. urban, areas with groundwater flowing up/down, etc.  

---

