Professor of Water and Process Engineering, University of Surrey
Disclosure statement
Adel Sharif receives funding from the Royal Society, EPSRC and BBSRC and is a founding member of Modern Water plc. Rizwan Nawaz does not work for, consult, own shares in
or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit
from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond
their academic appointment.
Almost all scientists agree
that burning fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. But
agreement is less clear cut on how exactly it’s influencing rising
global temperatures.
The world is now 1°C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times. Is
this solely down to emissions of greenhouse gasses such as CO₂?
Meteorologist Hubert Lamb, regarded as the father of modern climatology,
argued that CO₂ levels alone couldn’t account for all of the global warming that’s been observed.
His attention turned instead to the role of thermal emissions.
Burning fossil fuels doesn’t just produce greenhouse gases, it also
generates a lot of heat, which leaks out to the atmosphere. Nuclear
tests and volcanic eruptions are some examples of other large heat
sources.
Back in 2009, two scientists in Sweden argued that thermal emissions were more important than CO₂
for raising global temperatures. A few years later, two Chinese
scientists suggested that heat from the earth’s interior could be contributing to rising temperatures.
They argued that fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in layers and
crevices beneath the Earth’s surface act as an insulating blanket,
trapping heat from the planet’s interior. As these deposits have been
emptied by fossil fuel extraction, more of that heat could be reaching
the surface.
This idea is similar to how fat tissue under the skin prevents body heat from being lost
to the surrounding air.
To investigate this theory in the Earth’s crust, we looked at the
figures for global fossil fuel production alongside data for temperature
changes on the land and sea surface. Our research
suggests that it is possible that temperatures may be rising faster in
places where fossil fuels are being extracted from the ground. When underground reservoirs of
fossil fuels are drained, their role as an insulating blanket between
the heat of the Earth’s core and the surface is lost.Sentavio/Shutterstock
Rising heat
Between 2007 and 2017, 45.5 billion tonnes of oil and 36.3 billion cubic metres of natural gas were removed from the Earth’s crust.
When oil and gas is extracted, the voids fill with water, which is a
less effective insulator. This means more heat from the Earth’s interior
can be conducted to the surface, causing the land and the ocean to
warm.
We looked at warming trends in oil and gas producing regions across
the world. These places, which included Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Gulf,
Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea and Alaska, reported high rates of warming
– between three and six times higher than the average rate worldwide.
One of the fastest rates of warming has been observed in the Arctic, where temperatures have risen by 0.6°C every decade since 1978. In Antarctica, however, the increase is just 0.1°C, despite similar levels of atmospheric CO₂ in both polar regions.
One reason for the difference may be that fossil fuels are extracted in the Arctic, but not in the Antarctic. From 2007, more than 400 oil and gas fields have been developed north of the Arctic circle, while in Antarctica, fossil fuel extraction is banned.
An earlier study
found evidence for a similar pattern in the north east of England,
where a long history of coal mining has dramatically changed the land’s
subsurface. So much so that in the former coalfields around Gateshead
and Newcastle, a “heat island” effect was detected below and beneath the
ground. This meant the atmosphere above the conurbation was about 2°C
warmer than the surrounding area, while the ground beneath Gateshead was
found to be up to 4.5°C warmer.
Groundwater that discharged from a mine water pumping station was
also found to be unusually warm, in part due to heating from the Earth’s
interior. The researchers concluded that this effect could be expected
in former coalfields across Britain. Oil rigs in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Fields in Deadhorse, Alaska, US.EPA-EFE/JIM LO SCALZO
Could higher rates of warming in these places be caused by the Earth
losing its internal “heat shield”? The idea that some regions have a
protective layer below the ground, stopping heat from the Earth’s
interior rising to the surface, isn’t as strange as it may sound. After
all, the ozone layer in Earth’s atmosphere protects against ultraviolet
radiation, but it was only discovered in the 19th century. Astounding new findings about the Earth system emerge all the time.
If a similar heat-trapping shield exists in the Earth’s crust, much
must be done to reinforce it. Carbon emissions that are captured from
industry and energy generation could be stored in the crevices left by
extracted fossil fuels, re-insulating the sub-surface and helping to
slow the thermal emissions that could be amplifying global warming.
Scientists have said for some time that any hope of halting catastrophic climate change rests on leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
Our preliminary findings could give that warning new urgency.
Underground reserves of oil have existed for far longer than humans have
exploited them – we know worryingly little about the consequences of
emptying them. Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.
The
Conversation aims to rebuild trust in experts and promote more informed
public debate. Our independent fact-based journalism is essential for a
healthy democracy. Your support enables us to keep our content free and
accessible.
President Trump on Tuesday abruptly called off a trip to Denmark, announcing in a tweet that he was postponing the visit because the country’s leader was not interested in selling him Greenland.
The move comes two days after Trump told reporters that owning Greenland, a self-governing country that is part of the kingdom of Denmark, “would be nice” for the United States from a strategic perspective.
Trump’s announcement suggests that, despite his denials, the central purpose of his trip had been discussion of a U.S. purchase of the massive, glaciered island, which holds increasing strategic value as melting sea ice opens new parts of the Arctic to shipping and resource extraction.
Keep Reading
The episode was also a rare window into secret White House national security planning, albeit with a Trumpian dealmaker’s twist and an element of the surreal. Trump touts his real estate background as a main job qualification, promising voters he can negotiate better than his predecessors and spot a good deal. But the notion of buying a part of another country was widely met with surprise and bafflement when news broke last week of Trump’s interest in the island.
Trump on buying Greenland: 'Strategically, it's interesting'
President Trump told reporters on Aug. 18 that he is interested in acquiring Greenland but that it is not "number one on the burner" on his list of priorities. (The Washington Post)
In his tweet, Trump said that while Denmark is “a very special country with incredible people,” he is postponing his scheduled meeting with Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen based on her statement “that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland.”
“The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct,” Trump added. “I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!”
Over the weekend, Frederiksen had visited Greenland and told reporters there that Trump’s idea of buying the island was “absurd.”
It was not clear whether Trump will still go to Poland, as he had been scheduled to do for two days ahead of his trip to Copenhagen in early September.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Copenhagen in early August. (Philip Davali/AFP/Getty Images)
On Sunday, Trump confirmed that he has asked his administration to explore the possibility of buying Greenland, opining that “essentially, it’s a large real estate deal.” But he added that the matter was “not number one on the burner” and claimed that his visit to Denmark was not related to his interest in the island.
“Not for this reason at all,” he said.
Trump had also jokingly acknowledged his interest in purchasing the island for the United States on Monday, when he tweeted a doctored photo of a huge gold Trump Tower planted on what appears to be a Greenlandic fishing village.
“I promise not to do this to Greenland!” Trump wrote.
People familiar with the president’s interest in Greenland said he had been talking about the potential purchase for weeks. Senior administration officials had discussed the possibility of offering Denmark a deal where the United States would take over its annual $600 million subsidy to Greenland in perpetuity, two people familiar with the talks said.
They also discussed giving Denmark a large one-time payment as well to incentivize the transfer, the people said.
Greenlanders, many of whom chafe at Danish rule, reacted with scorn to word last week that Trump was keenly interested in making an offer.
Both Danish and Greenland officials have said in recent days that the island is not for sale.
“Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism,” Greenland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Friday in a tweet. “We’re open for business, not for sale.”
The United States has became increasingly interested in the Arctic due to Chinese and Russian expansion in the region as melting ice makes it more accessible.
China declared itself a “near-Arctic nation” last year and has defended its desire for a “Polar Silk Road” in which Chinese goods would be delivered by sea from Asia to Europe.
China also recently sought to bankroll the construction of three airports in Greenland, drawing concern from then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and prompting the Pentagon to make the case to Denmark that it should fund the facilities itself rather than rely on Beijing.
Trump had planned to dine with Denmark’s queen before meetings in Copenhagen with Danish political leaders. Before news of Trump’s interest in Greenland, his visit was seen as an offbeat thank-you to a small country that has been a stalwart NATO member and that supported U.S. military actions.
“This is no longer funny. Danish troops fought alongside the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 Danes died,” Brookings Institution Europe specialist Thomas Wright tweeted Tuesday. “The president dishonors the alliance and their sacrifice. On the same day he sought to appease [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by supporting his return to the G-8.”
Trump earlier Tuesday renewed his call for Russia to be allowed to rejoin the Group of Seven industrial nations whose annual meeting he will attend this weekend in France.
Trump is not the first U.S. president to propose buying Greenland. After World War II, President Harry S. Truman’s administration offered to purchase the country from Denmark for $100 million. The U.S. military had a presence in Greenland during the war as a means to protect the continent if Germany tried to attack.
Trump told reporters Sunday that owning Greenland is “hurting Denmark very badly” and that “they carry it at a great loss,” although he did not immediately provide evidence to back up those claims.
Although many in the United States have mocked the idea, one Democratic lawmaker on Sunday voiced openness to considering it. Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “changes are happening” in Greenland as a result of climate change, “and the people up there understand it and they’re trying to adjust to it.”
“We have a very strategic base up there, a military base, which we visited,” Manchin said, referring to his visit to Greenland earlier this year as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation. “And I understand the strategy for that in that part of the world and the Arctic opening up the way it is now.”
In an appearance on Fox Business Tuesday night, Fox News host Pete Hegseth, a favorite of the president, took an optimistic view of events, musing that perhaps Denmark was simply holding out in the hopes of getting Trump to reveal how much he was willing to pay for the island.
“It’s one of these big, bold ideas that no one would’ve thought of, that the modern era mostly bats aside and says would never happen,” Hegseth said of buying Greenland. “But hey, maybe it’s just an initial rebuff. Maybe it’s part of their negotiations. ‘Hey, we want a better price for Greenland.’”
Felicia Sonmez is a national political reporter covering breaking news from the White House, Congress and the campaign trail. She was previously based in Beijing, where she worked for Agence France-Presse and The Wall Street Journal.Follow
Anne Gearan is a White House correspondent for The Washington Post, with a focus on foreign policy and national security. She covered the Hillary Clinton campaign and the State Department for The Post before joining the White House beat. She joined the paper in 2012.Follow
Damian Paletta is White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining The Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal. Follow
It's the Summer Sale.
Ends Tomorrow: $10 $4 every month - that's every story for just $1 a week.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons license.
