<p>According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Earth's internal heat budget</a> (Wikipedia) “About 50% of the Earth's internal heat originates from radioactive decay”.</p>
<p>However, this makes up only a small portion of the Earth’s heat budget due to the large input of solar heating.</p>
<p>How much cooler would the Earth’s surface be if there was no contribution from radiogenic heating?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-16T21:42:44.250Z
The entire heat budget is irrelevant for the surface temperature - no matter how much is radiogenically generated.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-16T22:11:45.467Z
If Earth is at thermal equilibrium, it radiates as much heat as it receives (solar) and generates (radiogenic, gravitational, tidal and geologic). Thermal radiation varies with the 4th power of absolute temperature. If heat production (in this case, radiogenic) increases, the surface temperature increases until equilibrium is re-established.
Woody
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-16T22:16:58.450Z
Yes, generally it is $F_{internal} + F_{stellar} = F_{emitted}$, but since $F_{internal}/F_{stellar} \ll 1$, it is irrelevant. "Thermal radiation varies with the 4th power of absolute temperature. " Your point being? Radiogenic heat doesn't magically scale up to the fourth power, just to establish equilibrium.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-20T17:52:14.180Z
Thanks for the thoughtful question and answer. However, isn't the salient question about whether the 100M barrels of oil+ we have been pumping out of the mantle has reduced the previously provided radiation/heat barrier and whether the global 1.2 trillion ton+ ongoing ice melt isn't indicative of a growing heat imbalance? I hope this discussion grows as we record one global/regional heat record after another.
Greeley Miklashek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-21T21:50:13.183Z
well without it plate tectonics would stop, which would stop almost all volcanics, which cool the planet just through the loss of co2.
John
<climate-change><temperature>
How much cooler would the Earth’s surface be if there was no contribution from radiogenic heating?
Woody
# How much cooler would the Earth’s surface be if there was no contribution from radiogenic heating?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-11-16)

According to [Earth's internal heat budget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget) (Wikipedia) “About 50% of the Earth's internal heat originates from radioactive decay”.

However, this makes up only a small portion of the Earth’s heat budget due to the large input of solar heating.

How much cooler would the Earth’s surface be if there was no contribution from radiogenic heating?

**Tags:** climate-change, temperature

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The entire heat budget is irrelevant for the surface temperature - no matter how much is radiogenically generated.  
> **username_0**: If Earth is at thermal equilibrium, it radiates as much heat as it receives (solar) and generates (radiogenic, gravitational, tidal and geologic). Thermal radiation varies with the 4th power of absolute temperature. If heat production (in this case, radiogenic) increases, the surface temperature increases until equilibrium is re-established.  
> **username_1**: Yes, generally it is $F_{internal} + F_{stellar} = F_{emitted}$, but since $F_{internal}/F_{stellar} \ll 1$, it is irrelevant. "Thermal radiation varies with the 4th power of absolute temperature. " Your point being? Radiogenic heat doesn't magically scale up to the fourth power, just to establish equilibrium.  
> **username_2**: Thanks for the thoughtful question and answer. However, isn't the salient question about whether the 100M barrels of oil+ we have been pumping out of the mantle has reduced the previously provided radiation/heat barrier and whether the global 1.2 trillion ton+ ongoing ice melt isn't indicative of a growing heat imbalance? I hope this discussion grows as we record one global/regional heat record after another.  
> **username_3**: well without it plate tectonics would stop, which would stop almost all volcanics, which cool the planet just through the loss of co2.  

---

## 0 answers

