Hallo Radhashyam ,

Do you mean that we Earth cooling , not warming , and you look for the reason ???

While scientists speak about global warming !

After long research , and reading in history of Archaeology and Petrifications , I found that the deeper we go in the History , the bigger were Creatures , trees, homes , wadies , rivers.

And the colder longer were winters .

That means :

Sun began very very huge , more hot than now.

And was also more far from us .

With time , sun loses it's heat and coms nearer to us , to keep life growing .

Also the mechanism of environmental balance , the nights and days started very very long and went shorter and shorter .

Long nights has cooled earth deep in winter , with time got the cooling less and less , that minimum temperature went higher towards zero .

Thank you,Sir, Kenneth M Towe,

                      You are right sir. In case we go back to Big Bang/ gaseous Nebula theory for formation of earth,the simple causes of  radiation  and absorption of internal energy in the planet/earth itself to convert gaseous mass to solid mass in stages are emerging for cause of cooling of the planet earth.

The cooling has only happened over the last 50 million years since the Paleo-Eocene-Thermal Maximum. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide has been falling, and we have now entered an ice age. We have already raised CO2 levels above those before the Northern ice sheets first formed (400 ppm) and the Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheet is melting.  if we continue adding CO2 to the atmosphere we could also melt the Antarctic ice sheets raising sea levels by ~70 m worldwide.

Hello my friend,  Kenneth M Towe ,

Human life started on earth with our father Adam and our mother Hawa at the earth's surface stage of sand clay .

Also at the beginning of Life on earth , not much later than Trilobites and Snails !

Earth started to swallow who died first , not who is first created or born   !

Thus we find Trilobites and snails at the bottom of earth sediments in very few numbers and very large bodies .

Gradually with  time towards upside getting smaller size and smaller with  more and more numbers of them !

They were swallowed at first with large quantities because of Their very short life circle .

Whereby the first died human was Qabil ( Cain ) , he should be twenty years old at least . First  day of his time started about 4000 years long of our time , getting gradually shorter and shorter . That makes about 23 million years of our time ! That is enough for the sedimentation of many layers of earth crust.

So we find trilobites and snails in huge quantities during that , whereby we can not find the only one dead   human body .

The life circle of human life is very very much longer than of small creatures there for we found there dead bodys in layers of earth crust very later .

This is the explanation that I mean , to be close to reality !

http://www.trilobites.info/lgtrilos.htm

Kenneth,

Here is the complete abstract from the paper you cited:

"Geological and geochemical evidence1, 2, 3 indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition4, 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies5, 6 suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (pCO2) fell below a critical threshold of approx 750 p.p.m.v., but the timing and magnitude of pCO2 relative to the evolution of the ice sheet has remained unclear. Here we use the boron isotope pH proxy7, 8 on exceptionally well-preserved carbonate microfossils from a recently discovered geological section in Tanzania9, 10 to estimate pCO2 before, during and after the climate transition. Our data suggest that a reduction in pCO2 occurred before the main phase of ice growth, followed by a sharp recovery to pre-transition values and then a more gradual decline. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between approx450 and approx1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of approx760 p.p.m.v. The ice cap survived the period of pCO2 recovery, although possibly with some reduction in its volume, implying (as models predict11) a nonlinear response to climate forcing during melting. Overall, our results confirm the central role of declining pCO2 in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet (in broad agreement with carbon cycle modelling12) and help to constrain mechanisms and feedbacks associated with the Earth's biggest climate switch of the past 65 Myr."

The final sentence repeats my claim that the major cooling was due to falling pCO2.

Thank you, sirs Kenneth & Mc Donald for your investigative research reports. A practical and solid proposition with significant observation will quench the thirst. While Venus got cooled only up to 4620c being nearer(0.72 AU) to sun, earth cooled to 150c still away(1 AU) from the sun. Gas giants got cooled to minus regimes of centigrade scale. We should focus like a technological fact to arrive at the truth without further throwing ups.

Kenneth,

The problem is that the models are wrong! CO2 does not affect the atmosphere by warming the air. It heats the surface which alters the snow line which in turn alters the planet's albedo. CO3 warms the planet indirectly. See my poster from the EGU Conference https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301540905_A_Paradigm_shift_to_an_Old_Scheme_for_Outgoing_Longwave_Radiation

This could explain the hiatus (in global temperature rise)  if cloud cover increased to nullify the loss of glacier ice. Or the it may have been caused by the increase in Antarctic sea ice. It seems to be over now. http://www.scarlet-jade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Global-Temperature-Anomalies-to-2016_05.png

Cheers, Alastair.

Conference Paper A Paradigm shift to an Old Scheme for Outgoing Longwave Radiation

I would like to try to focus on the question as stated: During the formation of the earth there were three mechanisms that likely contributed to producing a hot primordial earth: Relase of gravitaional potential energy by the contracting primordial body, kinetic energy release by asteroidal impacts and radioactive decay of various radioisotopes within the earth's interior. Active volcanism released volatiles to produce a primordial atmosphere. This "hot" primordial earth cooled by radiating "heat/energy" into the cold interplanetary/interstellar space just as the sun does today. Life developed and ultimately produced the oxygen-rich atmosphere we have today. With this atmosphere, radiative heating from the sun and heat transfer from the earth's interior (today's volcanism, for example) a more or less steady-state condition developed that varies with time but gives us the temperature regime we enjoy today.

I add a footnote to my answer above: It should be recognized that the earth's thermal regime is not an "equilibrium system" but a "quasi-steady-state system" that is maintained by a dynamic balancing of thermal inputs and outputs, for example, the input radiation from the sun and the outgoing thermal radiation from the earth. I use "quasi" to indicate the the system fluctuates continually and may even be subject to long-term secular change.

Sir, Dwight Hoxie, your thinking are praise worthy, but we search for the simple causes of heat energy got missed/lost from the earth system in period of over 4 billion years that resulted in 6000K earth to cool to 278K. Where did the energy transmitted?

The energy was radiated into space just like energy as heat is radiated from a hot stove. The earth was (and is) hot relative to the cold of space and it is known that heat will flow from a hot body to a cold body (in this case the vacuum of space). "Heat flow" is a form of thermal energy transfer.

First of all the principal earth cooling event occurred between the formation epoch of the earth at ≈ 4.6 billion years ago and the establishment of quasi-steady-state conditions by the beginning of the Cambrian at ≈ 570 million years ago. The time-scale shown on the chart is highly misleadig as there was a ≈ 4 billion year period of cooling of the primordial earth before the Cambrian explosion by which time the quasi-steady-state conditions had long been established. The earth cooled exponentially by radiation into space until the quasi-steady-state conditions were established.

Sir, Kenneth M Towe , your prediction is perfectly right. I think, apart from this , a part of heat has been absorbed/utilized  by the earth itself  as internal energy for consumption in making bond, micro-structure of solids & liquids found on the earth forming from envelop of fundamental particles/gaseous clouds initially present on earth before 4.5 billion years. This absorption of heat caused cooling of the earth.  

Dear Radhashyam, I must dispute your answer above. The earth nominally formed by aggregation of dust particles and larger objects along with gases that were in the nebular cloud surrounding the developing poto-sun. "Fundamental  particles" if by these you mean free-standing electrons, protons and neutrons wouid have been mostly tied up as gas-phase molecules and as minerals within the aggregating solid objects. You use the phrase " initially present on earth before 4.5 billion years." Strictly speaking before 4.6/4.5 billion years ago there was no "earth" as such for anything to be "initially present on" (although the phrase ('initially presint within the developing proto-planet would be true). The proto-earth likely accumulated as a molten spherical body with the highest temperature at the center and decreseing outward from the center towards the congealing surface of the body. Meanwhile heat woud be flowing continuously outward from the hot interior and upon reaching the prroto-earth's surface would be radiated into space. The earth did not cool by internal absorption of energy - it cooled by radiating heat into space.

Dear Ales,

You are right but I think that Radhashyam was asking about the surface temperature of the earth and thought that somehow surface cooling could occur by energy transfer from the surface to the earth's interior.  To my knowledge only radiative cooling could occur at the earth's surface into the vacuum of space and the interior thermal regime was more or less controlled by the surface boundary conditions together with the thermal properties and processes acting within the interior.

At the beginning earth's temperature was so high(above melting point of all materials) that matter would be only in gaseous state(above plasma state) and no liquid can be predicted at this temperature, please try to understand this point.

Dear Radhashyam, the temperature at the surface of the accreting proto-earth would be high enough to melt the accreting materials but not high enough to vaporize them, which would require conditions like those that obtain at the surface of the sun. 

Dear Dwight Hoxie,materials on initial earth will be at more than 6000K above melting point of all materials and in gaseous state. As per Big-Bang/ Nebula concept earth was a unstable part of sun and the same was ejected from it for stability of sun. Hence, initially all were in gaseous state in earth and not in either  solid nor  liquid state. Later, on at a very slow rate of cooling, all materials were condensed from this gaseous state to liquid and then to solid.It is our responsibility now to find out how earth was cooled to this temperature(say 150c ) over a period of 4.5 billion years. We have to prepare a road map with above data with our intelligence for the causes of cooling of the earth.   

It is personal interest to know our surroundings scientifically and unfold the secrets of nature with known facts available with us.

Radhashyam, I agree completely with what say but joining with Ales where "scientifically" did you get the idea that temperatures of the initial earth would be above 6000 K? To my knowledge there is no evidence for this having been the case.

Ken, I agree that Radhashyam Muduli has an erroneous but fixed picture in his mind and I should like to know how he "scientifically" came up with his ideas. I've been out of astronomy for awhile but I think that we do have a pretty good handle on gravitational collapse, star formation  and planetary formation within collapsing stellar nebulae that excludes Radhashyam's thinking.

Sir, Dwight Hoxie, you are much higher level with star formation and planetary formation which are more theoretical. You please come down to Physics and Thermodynamics which are most practical with nature. You should continue with your esteem pursuits and requested to have a look over the current crisis/happenings in nature.   

Radhashyam, I have been trying  to use physics and thermodynamics  to answer your question. Please note that "planetary formation"  applies directly to the formation of planet earth. What are the "current crisis/happenings in nature" of which you speak and that I should look over? I sense that you already have the answer that you want whether it be correct or not.

Dwight Hoxie, Current crisis is global warming. You have studied and researched a lot on planetary formation, with this please tell me how this earth was formed and how earth is moving around the sun to cause seasons change on earth's surface? How many same elements found on Earth, Venus and Mercury?

Dear Radhashyam,

I'm not going to address present-day "global warming", which has been extensively analyzed and debated in answering a question here in ResearchGate and I refer you to that forum.

With regard to the formation of the earth I refer you back to the my first two contributions in trying to answer your specific question in this forum; they, I believe, summarize the basic physics and thermodynamics of the earth's formation.

The earth revolves around the sun because of the mutual gravitational attraction between the earth and the sun. This is an example of a "steady-state system" in which the earth is falling continuously towards the sun under gravity in accordance with Newton's Law of Gravitation but maintains its more-or-less constant distance from the sun as a result of Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion (the force and acceleration are directed towards the center of the sun and are perpendicular to the direction of the earth's instantaneous direction of motion so the earth's direction of motion changes continuously as the earth moves forward in its orbit around the sun.

The earth has seasons because the earth's axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun. Insofar as is known the rocky inner planets Mercury, Venus , Earth, Mars as well as the Moon are all composed of the same chemical elements although there may be some differences in the abundances of specific elements among these different bodies.

Dear Dwight Hoxie,

 Thank you for your answer. Myself is a Mechanical Engineer and has liking for Geography, interested in Earth System Science and want to go in details of the physical phenomenon on earth surface. As such, I have discovered that earth is not moving in manner as we are thinking and earlier scientist have predicted, actually earth is moving in ascending manner from 21st June to 22nd December and in descending manner from 22nd December to 21st June and not just floating at the same level around the sun round the year. Would it have been true, earth would had been a dead planet like Mars, Venus and Mercury. As you have stated and commonly accepted, tilting of the earth's axis is not the true reason for season change, its up & down motion around the sun is the true reason. If earth had been tilted, duration of day & night over equatorial region would not have been 12 hours each throughout the year as we are observing on earth's surface.  Please elaborate, out of 118 elements found on earth how many are common / available in terrestrial planets ?

At first, the oceans were able to slowly absorb the CO-2 from fires, volcanic eruptions, and etcetera. With little CO-2 in the atmosphere, heat slowly escaped into outer space cooling the planet. Now... the oceans are in such poor health, they are no longer able to remove the excess CO-2 and this has slowed the escape of heat. We need to revitalize our oceans and in so doing we save our planet.

Sir, capt. David William, thank you for your answer. Please start the cooling process from gaseous envelope of hot earth at 6000K, as it is thought that earth had taken its birth from a bulk of hot gaseous clouds ejected from sun or solar nebula. 

Dear Radhashyam,

This is what you said above ". . . gaseous envelope of hot earth at 6000K, as it is thought that earth had taken its birth from a bulk of hot gaseous clouds ejected from sun or solar nebula. " This statement at best is simply not true and at worst is nonsense. I don't know where you obtained your notion of the formation of the earth with which you seem determined to belive although it is wholly contrary to known science and evidence. You posed a question and have received many answers but the only ones you accept are those that agree with your erroneous preconceived view. My question to you is why did you ask the question if you already had the only answer that you would accept?

What may be causes of cooling of the planet earth to this temperature, say 15 degree celcius? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_may_be_causes_of_cooling_of_the_planet_earth_to_this_temperature_say_15_degree_celcius#view=579042a23d7f4bc0ed6eb084 [accessed Jul 21, 2016].

That's a coincidence! Kenneth M Towe does not believe in sea captains with 50 years of ocean-going experience and I don't believe in scientists. Scientists use an honorary system that says they can quote any statement made by another scientist without verifying its validity. In other words, science is based on a system of trust that says you can use a lie of another scientist to reinforce your own lies. This also means that scientific fraud from 100 years ago can be quoted today as a fact to put together a false conclusion to serve the purpose of the one offering the grand money. Scientists are for sale to the highest bidder! They chase money; not truth. They act like Gods of Knowledge but they turn our to be big fat liars! And,then they openly insult anyone outside their inner circle. 

Kenneth, what drives you to want to pop off with a smart ass remark about my comment? The simplest answer is usually the truth!

By the way, the question Radhashyam Muduli ask was valid! Why you want to insult him too. Who are you trying to impress?

Kenneth, all you need to do is carry the science in your attached file just little further. May I suggest that you visit the website below.

We can continue your education when you finish this small assignment!

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

Por favor! Please! Ken and Capt. David, light sabers at 5 meters to resolve this contentious issue! When the Yellowstone supervolcano erupts, all of these issues will be put aside and we will have all kinds of volcanic ash  descending upon our heads about which to debate to our heart's content!

Kenneth, now you are really getting close to a giant step forward in using your brain. While you are exploring undersea volcanic eruption dig around and see if you can find out how these same seafloor upheavals convert CO2 to carbonate and water. Keep in mind that when carbon dioxide dissolves in water it exists in chemical equilibrium producing carbonic acid. Excessive carbonic acid causes the ocean's average surface pH to shift the balance towards ocean acidification. Now when we consider seafloor volcanism, we must wonder why undersea volcanoes did not cause global warming many million years ago. In other words, there must be a mechanism in which the oceans can chemically balance the destructive nature of CO2. The next assignment for you is to sort out whether or not the mass slaughter of life in the sea by man has somehow weakened the ability of the oceans to neutralize CO2's nasty side! 

Then you need to sort out whether pollution and or the mass slaughter of life in the sea by man has somehow weakened the ability of the oceans to neutralize CO2's nasty side! 

Your Erika moment will come when you realize saving the oceans is the key to saving the planet from global warming! 

Dwight, funny thing is that the evidence I now have suggests a very simple way to predict 3 weeks in advance of when Yellowstone's supervolcano might erupt. This same method would also allow us to predict 3 weeks in advance when the megaquake might occur along the Cascadia fault. This could save hundreds of millions of human lives and may even save the United States from total destruction!

In fact, it even seems unreasonable to think that if either event occurred, seismic waves from one would trip the other since they so close together.

Maybe the way to cut the biting tongue of Kenneth is to change the subject and let him insult me on a different topic. I think he is over his head of the CO2 thing. :>) 

Sir, Kenneth M Towe, Thank you for your efforts. Sir, it is immaterial,as to where he lives or what he does, it is our combined efforts to arrive at a correct destination so that our followers will face no problem and it will be easier for them to carry forward our mission in right direction. In scientific community, we are proud of our elderly people to communicate their matured ideas.

Thanks & Regards,                                           Radhashyam Muduli. 

Bye bye, Kenneth. Best wishes to you and nice talking with you!