Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy

The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW) and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth

Earth's internal heat powers most geological processes and drives plate tectonics Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation The insolation that eventually, after reflection, reaches the surface penetrates only several tens of centimeters on the daily cycle and only several tens of meters on the annual cycle. This renders solar radiation irrelevant for internal processes.

Thanks for your response.  So how much does carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to global warming, and out of this CO2 contribution, how much can be attributed to human activity?

Maybe the question below does not exactly apply here, but I feel that both question and answer are relevant to the discussion being tabled.

Question:

What would be the most effective method to persuade those who don't believe in the existence of climate change (caused by human activity)?

Answer:

Step 1. Show the evolution of the CO2 content in the atmosphere in the last 800,000 years (e.g. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html). Underline that there is a correlation between global CO2 content in the atmosphere and climate (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html ). Climate change occurred in the past, so that the existence of climate change on its own should be out of question. (Now let's come to human activity as a cause of climate change).

Step 2. Note that not even during the interglacial (hot) periods CO2 exceeded 300 ppm (worldwide average), but after the start of the so-called industrial revolution (beginning of massive use of fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas) the CO2 level started to rocket and reached 400 ppm (it grows now at a rate of approx. 2 ppm/year). The point becomes finding what causes such an anomalous growth of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which is likely to bring climate change if not cured).

Step 3. Observe two years of CO2 man-made emissions (animation on page http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ff.html) and reflect on the fact that fossil fuels are relatively poor in 13C, a stable isotope of Carbon. By burning 13C depleted fuel, people generates 13C depleted CO2 that mixes in the atmosphere (initially in the same hemisphere where fossil fuel is burned). Observe how the 13C content of atmospheric CO2 diminishes in time (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/gallery/figures/co2c13_surface.png ) with an obvious correlation to the CO2 content (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/gallery/figures/co2_surface.png), proving that the excess CO2 is man-made (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html , and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html).

Step 4. Put all together and conclude that A) mankind is emitting to the atmosphere CO2 from burning fossil fuels at a rate that exceeds the natural capacity of the planet to take it back, and that B) such excessive CO2 is likely to cause severe climate changes (if no remedies are taken).

Step 5 (optional, but strongly recommended). Start campaigning in favour of CO2 emission reduction, including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS, see for example http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/).

from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_be_the_most_effective_method_to_persuade_those_who_doesnt_believe_in_the_existence_of_climate_change 

Ales,

Kenneth is one of the most irreducible ....

Best wishes!

Apparently, the main cause of global warming is the weakening of the magnetic field of our Earth. Over the past 60 years, it has weakened by 3%. While the geomagnetic field will be weakened, the global temperature on Earth will rise. However, ahead, no doubt, the global cooling to the ice age (see site.).

Fortunately, the ice age should come about in 500 years, but not later than 5000 years. We should rejoice that there is at least another 500 years of climatic optimum!

Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and in this long time there had been periods that were much, much warmer than it is today (e.g. during the tinme dinosaurs lived on our planet) and also periods that were far colder (ice ages). In other words: it would be strange when the climate would be the same indefinately. This never has been the case. There were also period when CO2 concnetration was much higher than today. Indeed there was a time when no O2 was in the atmosphere... Climate change is something that bothers us, because we are effected, because we are there to be bothered. It does not effect Planet Earth in any meaningful way as the planet will be there even if Human aren't anymore (although also Planet Earth won't be eternal). Among many other challenges the scientific mainstream believes that the generation of special gases through the burning of fossil fuels is the driving force for climate change. A few, however, see human contribution little in global warming and some even talk of global cooling. In RG there have been many contributions that put global warming and global cooling as two different processes. What is different is the outcome of very complex processes. The outcome is either warming or cooling, and to make it even more complex both can happen - in different places.... or at differnt times (a specific place can have warmer summers and colder winters....,). How much of this change is contributed by human activies we can discuss and do research about, but it would be strange if only humans have contributed to these changes, or if they would be entirely caused by natural processes - both is very unlikely the case. Sometimes people think that IPCC does investigate into global warming, but indeed it looks into climate change. The expression global warming is out since many years as it is acknowldeged that it is much more than around temperature change. Global cooling, if it exists is also climate change. In Germany we can have temperatures in winter of minus 20 degrees Celsius. That is winter and we call this winter weather. Some years winters are mild, other years very harsh, long and very cold. Weather and climate are different things, and the weather is never the same. It changes and also if the sun energy received on January 1 at a particular place would be the same every year (which is not the case as the sender (sun) sends not always the same) it still would result in different weather as the energy received is only one from many, many factors that makes the weather. In the discussion often people speak of a food crisis because of global warming. I doubt that this is the only possible interpretation. Today we produce considerable more food per capita than a few decades ago. When people are starving then it is usual because of the impacts of wars, civil wars, ethnic tensions, or just because of poverty, but not necessarily because of climate change, at least not so directly as often assumed. Here in the Pacific Island countries the talk of climate change and its impact on food security has been rather dominant, despite this part of the world does not know widespread undernutrition and when we look at malnutrition than we discover that the biggest concern is obesity, and when we would anlyze the causes then we would not find climate change, but MacDonalds and other fast food outlets. I think that the cooling effect due to reduced sun activity (if it exists) moderates anthropogenic warming impacts, the same other natural impacts on the climate would such as volcanic eruptions etc. We should realise that something as complex as climate has many contributing factors that lead to change. To assume that everything is caused by humans or everything by natural causes is far too simplistic. For that reason it is rather difficult to make any precise predictions of the future. So both (processes that contribute to warming and such contributing to cooling) not only can happen, but they do, and they always did. What now is sold as new ideas and change to previous scientific knowledge is actually nothing really new other than that one aspect from an extremely complex process is taken out and displayed as the whole truth.

The average heat flux from the mantle to earth's surface is only about 0.1 W/m2, far lower than the daily radiation from the sun, which is about 300 W/m2 in the morning and 1200 W/m2 at noon near equator. Thus we are quite comfortable sitting on the surface of the Earth.

The mean Wet bulk temperature in the tropics is about 25.C and the dry bulk about 34.5C. Note the 20th century global average of 14.8°C.