Can we control the temperature of Earth?

[lomiller]

That's incorrect AFAIK....general assessment is 100k years on the outside based on the weathering uptake.

Lets backtrack a second. The claim was made that fossil carbon was still part of this natural cycle of sequester/release. I agreed, but said that the billions of years it would take before this carbon was released (by continental drift and erosion) so the claim that “it would have been released anyway” is meaningless.

 

[macdoc]

Still not quite clear...erosion/weathering sequesters carbon.
Fossil carbon can be released by magma intrusion into carboniferous rock strata by way of volcanoes...

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere from volcanic activity such as eruptions of active volcanoes and CO2 gas seeps. Some of this CO2 is absorbed by the oceans through direct gas exchange at the surface, a process controlled by sea surface temperatures. Cold water absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, whereas warm water may actually give off CO2.

Additional atmospheric CO2 becomes part of the chemical weathering cycle, combining with rainwater to form carbonic acid. Although carbonic acid is a very weak acid, it slowly dissolves many rocks, especially those which contain calcium carbonate, such as limestone and marble. This is the same the process which slowly removes the lettering on marble headstones.

During periods of mountain-building, such as the uplift of the Himalayas, the weathering cycle uses up huge amounts of atmospheric CO2 in the process of eroding the newly formed mountains. The carbon, in the form of carbonic acid, combines with minerals at the surface to form insoluble carbonate compounds. These are washed into the ocean by erosion and eventually form into limestone. The formation of limestone rock sequesters carbon for millions of years until it is eventually exposed at the earth's surface to be dissolved in another weathering cycle. In the past, there were periods when volcanoes were much more active and vast quantities of CO2 were vented to the atmosphere.

Levels of atmospheric CO2 sometimes reached levels that were over 100 times higher than today's CO2 levels. Before green plants, the excess CO2 was eventually absorbed by the slow action of the geologic cycle, a process that could take tens of millions of years.

Once the biological carbon cycle began to operate, excess atmospheric CO2 from volcanic activity was removed much faster.

So in geologic cycle the volcanoes are the source ( one could view that as tectonic ) , the mountain building, weathering an agent of sequestration.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/41804.html
Clear as mud eh

 

[Trakar]

Billions of years was a reference to how long it would take for that carbon to naturally return to circulation if we were not digging it up, not how long it’s already been buried for. I guess I could have been clearer.

Makes sense, still not sure the time scale for such is billions of years, given that the solar system itself is only a few billion years old, but that sounds ballpark good enuff, apologies for the interruption.

 

[bit_pattern]

I know you can choose totally to ignore that temperature and the suns activity are so much parallel, and blame CO2 for all the temperature rise the last 100 years, – But this would not be fair to the Sun, because several hundred years ago observation shows that the suns activity and temperature on Earth is indeed connected. It would also not be fair to the fact that we know there was an unexplained cold period in the middle of the last century, or that there was a even warmer period 1000 years ago. -etc ...etc...etc...

No one has ever said that CO2 has driven the last century of temperatures, rather that after the mid-1970's the correlation between the sun and global tempos diverged as CO2 became the more dominant forcing. For most of the last millennium there has been a very good solar/temp correlation, that however no longer exists.

 

[Trakar]

Still not quite clear...erosion/weathering sequesters carbon.
Fossil carbon can be released by magma intrusion into carboniferous rock strata by way of volcanoes...



So in geologic cycle the volcanoes are the source ( one could view that as tectonic ) , the mountain building, weathering an agent of sequestration.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/41804.html
Clear as mud eh

Yeah really, mud...clear, that is.
I wonder if there have been any sort of actual comparisons looking at this for a good, solidly evidenced average time cycle for the natural release of these types of sequestered carbon. Intrusions from below and subducted deposits are going to have different time-scale cycles and the releases are going to be different as well. Luckily for our species, the era of massive intrusions and basaltic floods seem to be winding down (of course, for all we know there could be massive super-heated feed plumes working their way through the mantle as we prattle ).

I'm sure that previous average rates should be quantifiable - at least broadly and generally,...but this is OT, in that the OP topic is asking about anthropogenic control,...which raises another question: "Can" we (actively, and intentionally) control (influence and manipulate) the (global average) temperature (/climate) of the Earth (sustainably, over a long enough period of time to thwart the worst of what currently seems to perch on our increasingly nearer horizon)? And perhaps as importantly what should be our focus (individually, as advocates, nationally, and/or globally)?

Or am I reading too much into the title?

(Oh, a semi-related link for those interested: "Methane Release from Igneous Intrusion of Coal during Late Permian Extinction Events" )

 

[Peephole]

CO2 on the other hand is also one of the less dangerous ones.

No, it's not.

Greenhouse gas H2O is far more dangerous due to a feedback mechanism. It also is responsible for a contribution of 36-72% (in comparisation: CO2 has about 9-26%). I should also admit I cannot state an exact percentage of contribution from the gasses towards the greenhouse effect. There are various reasons such as the gasses emitting and absorbing heat at the same frequencies as other gasses. Although I think the given numbers are at average good enough.

The problem isn't the greenhouse effect, which is a good thing. It's the amplification of the greenhouse effect. Water vapour isn't driving this.

On a personal note I would also raise the question and raise the doubt if it really is our fault/influence why the temperature is raising at "alarming" rate. From what I can guess, natural sources emitting greenhouse gasses have a bigger influence then me driving my car and the other steps taken to fabricate my car and other stuff we tend to work with.

Science disagrees with you.

But hey, at least you were only guessing!

Climate change is something very complex and people claiming they know the truth are probably selling woo.

Gravity is very complex too but I don't think Einstein and Newton were nuts.

Up here in Belgium (and I can also say the Netherlands, parts of Germany, and parts of France) we noticed a decline in temperature during the winter seasons.

No, winters are getting warmer in Belgium as well.

In Dutch:

Het onderzoek van de reeksen met de seizoenstemperaturen toont aan dat de gemiddelde temperatuur in de winter en in de lente, net zoals de jaarlijkse gemiddelde temperatuur, ook een eerste, vrij abrupte en zeer opmerkelijke opwarming heeft gekend rond 1910 en een tweede tegen het einde van de jaren 1980.

http://www.meteo.be/meteo/view/nl/69129-Recent.html?view=3236558

A last nuance which should be made would be that on the geological timescale the earth just ended a large ice-age. Global warming is therefor a fact.

Temperatures were largely stable before the current warming occurred.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.e...ns/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/independent.png
http://oxfordkevin.carbonclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Hockey-Sticks.jpg

 

[Peephole]

Point taken, but what I was aiming at is the simple fact staring at CO2 alone is a problem.

Such novel ideas, climate scientists never thought of this of course.

There you go again, cars...
I'd find it quite bothersome "cars" are being used as a scapegoat. They are not the only things which produce CO2 or are the only major factor towards contribution to global warming.

Nobody says these kind of things. Quit putting up strawmen.

Others would include vulcanism, swamps (CH4 and other gasses as a result from decomposing in absence of air),...

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Taken these into account I would be inclined to think us humans are not contributing/influencing that a big deal. Maybe speeding it up a little but being the number 1 to blame.. doubtly.

Completely baseless claim.

When it comes to global warming, politics have left their mark. Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" was a sort of publicity stunt for his political agenda. While I applaud for making the people aware of these things happening he could at least have used full scale graphs (and not parts) and contributing CORRECT information (there are a few fallacies).

Which he did. An Inconvenient Truth has been lauded as having a very solid scientific base.

Quit blindly spewing warming denier propaganda.

In Europe you can even "buy" fresh air from other countries if your national emissions tends to be too high for the European norms.

This is called a cap and trade system, and it's an important tool in combatting global warming.

It is possible there is a raise of CO2 in the atmosphere for the forthcomming 20 years or so and suddenly decline once again.

No, no one think that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to drop anytime soon.

 

[Dimitri]

Such novel ideas, climate scientists never thought of this of course.

I was aiming at the common idea most tend to use of CO2 being the major player and with all respect seemed to forget the other gasses.

Nobody says these kind of things. Quit putting up strawmen.

I wasn't, learn to read. The pointing at "me riding with my car being fewer of influence then a volcano" is taking a whack at the common idea humans being responsible for emitting the biggest part of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Once again learn to read the whole argument. I mentioned volcanic activity next to other activities which cause CO2 to be emitted in the atmosphere.

This is called a cap and trade system, and it's an important tool in combatting global warming.

It's not, it is an economical measurment taken by countries if they fear of not reaching their standards. Countries who sell will appear to have a slightly higher emittance and countries buying will have a lower. On a total European scale the differences will make 0 difference my naive little boy. Luckily this isn't the case in reality since there are few countries who take up their responsability.

No, no one think that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to drop anytime soon.

That's why I said "possible". The loose border of 20 years can be extended or shortened. Again, learn to read..

Which he did. An Inconvenient Truth has been lauded as having a very solid scientific base.

Quit blindly spewing warming denier propaganda.

I'm in no way a denier, but I suggest taking a critical look at the film itself. There are a few aspects such as the washing up of dead polar bears he tends to be a result of global warming. Others would be the the drying of tsjaad-lake due to global warming (while it's more likely to be a result of overpopulation).
It's fun to see people screaming denier as soon as someone starts wandering about ideas which are against the ideas of masses. What happened to your skepsism?

No, it's not.

Oh yes it is, ever considered the effects of the other gasses on global scale? Radiative forces of the different gasses are not the only things which should be measured with when it comes to calling something dangerous on global warming.

 

[lomiller]

I was aiming at the common idea most tend to use of CO2 being the major player and with all respect seemed to forget the other gasses.

Read the chart CO2 is the dominant climate forcing. Number 2 is human emission of methane, number 3 is human emission of aerosols (cooling) number 4 is human depletion of ozone (cooling)

I
Once again learn to read the whole argument. I mentioned volcanic activity next to other activities which cause CO2 to be emitted in the atmosphere.

Rather then appealing to errors no matter how common you should look at the science. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are 100X greater then the CO2 emitted from all the worlds volcanoes combined. Isotope evidence proves that 100% of the change in atmosphere CO2 since the industrial revolution are caused by burning fossil fuels.

It's not, it is an economical measurment taken by countries if they fear of not reaching their standards. Countries who sell will appear to have a slightly higher emittance and countries buying will have a lower. On a total European scale the differences will make 0 difference my naive little boy. Luckily this isn't the case in reality since there are few countries who take up their responsability.

If you want to post conspiracy theories, there are more appropriate forums. Unrestricted emission of CO2 creates an externality that needs to be removed if you want a properly functioning free market. Cap and trade is a mechanism to let the free market set the value of CO2 emissions rather then using a government imposed value on how much those emissions are worth.

I'm in no way a denier, but I suggest taking a critical look at the film itself. There are a few aspects such as the washing up of dead polar bears he tends to be a result of global warming.

Gore has this right, whoever you have been listening to has it wrong. Several polar bear populations are farcing immediate stress due to declines in sea ice, others will face such stress in the coming decades.

Others would be the the drying of tsjaad-lake due to global warming (while it's more likely to be a result of overpopulation).

Again, Gore has it right, whoever you are getting your information from has it wrong. Increased irrigation are contributing factors but the primary cause is reduced rainfall since the 1950’s. This reduction in rainfall is also a contributing factor in the increased use of irrigation.

It's fun to see people screaming denier as soon as someone starts wandering about ideas which are against the ideas of masses. What happened to your skepsism?

Perhaps you should be a little more skeptical of the sources you chose, because as I mention above in both of your examples it’s actually Gore that was correct, but you seem to have believed the opposite without consulting the evidence.

Radiative forces of the different gasses are not the only things which should be measured with when it comes to calling something dangerous on global warming.

What other properties of gasses do you think is relevant?

 

[Dimitri]

Rather then appealing to errors no matter how common you should look at the science. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are 100X greater then the CO2 emitted from all the worlds volcanoes combined. Isotope evidence proves that 100% of the change in atmosphere CO2 since the industrial revolution are caused by burning fossil fuels.

Show me your evidence of the isotopes then. Show me the report with the whole scientific approach, places of measurment and whatnot on which your claim and their conclusion is based.
And once again (am I working with dyslectics here?) learn to f**** read. Volcanic activity was mentioned as one of the many natural sources.

If you want to post conspiracy theories, there are more appropriate forums. Unrestricted emission of CO2 creates an externality that needs to be removed if you want a properly functioning free market. Cap and trade is a mechanism to let the free market set the value of CO2 emissions rather then using a government imposed value on how much those emissions are worth.

What I have mentioned was not a conspiracy theory but a plain fact for someone who is a bit up-to-date with climate policies and politics. Learn to double-check your sources. Also learn to think and make an in-depth study of the results from this cap and trade. Learn to be skeptic about it. You claimed I stepped into political inspired numbers, I claim you stepped into the ******** this cap and trade really is.

What other properties of gasses do you think is relevant?

Reflection of the gasparticles, chemical reactions, katalysators, feedback mechanisms,.. You people tend to stare yourself blind towards radiation forces, guess what there are many other factors included which have their influence. It's easy to blame everything on CO2 because it has "such and such force", I suggest taking another look at other effects of gasses who have their influence on global warming.
As stated, global warming is very complex, the comments I have thusfar received showed a great understanding of certain aspects but tend to be too narrow when it comes down to viewing the bigger image.
I'm not claiming to be right, I'm merely pointing out in what I think are inconsistencies in certain ways of thinking. And for thusfar almost anyone ripped out parts of my responses from their context, managed to misread or ignore certain keywords and started blabbering about.

Read the chart CO2 is the dominant climate forcing. Number 2 is human emission of methane, number 3 is human emission of aerosols (cooling) number 4 is human depletion of ozone (cooling)

According to THAT chart, I see many other things missing. Also the chart only shows the radiative forces of the gasses provided but nowhere do I see a quantity anthromorphic emittance vs natural (emittance in ppm or ppb). Only radiative force is being shown. I once again ask: give me a plain chart wherein total anthromorphic emittance vs natural is being shown. If you cannot do so, please refrain from responding since this is the only question I ask.

I would like to add that the chart is right in showing CO2 has the strongest radiative force. But I like to see everything in total. The chart alone does not tell me the true influence it has since it LACKS quantities or in other words AMOUNTS of the gasses (parts per Billion/million in a set volume). With a simple mathematical function it is then easy to conclude whether your or mine statements made were right or wrong.

And with TOTAL I mean TOTAL and not from vague interpretations.


To get back a bit to the subject: Can we control the temprature of the Earth?
Answer would be an obvious HELL NO.

 

[lomiller]

Show me your evidence of the isotopes then.

Look into the work of Hans Suess in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Reflection of the gasparticles, chemical reactions, katalysators, feedback mechanisms,.. You people tend to stare yourself blind towards radiation forces, guess what there are many other factors included which have their influence.

The Earths receives energy from the Sun and Emits it back out as Infrared. To several orders of magnitude these are the only two things that can change the amount of energy in atmosphere+ocean. Feedback can amplify/attenuate a change in one of these but it cannot cause a change. Chemical reactions do not create or destroy energy and the earths atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.

I suggest taking another look at other effects of gasses who have their influence on global warming.

Suggesting others “look for other causes” to something that is already explained is the antithesis of skepticism. If you have some other cause you would like people to consider, propose it and show that it explains the data as well or better then the current theory.

According to THAT chart, I see many other things missing. Also the chart only shows the radiative forces of the gasses provided but nowhere do I see a quantity anthromorphic emittance vs natural (emittance in ppm or ppb). Only radiative force is being shown.

The chart reflects the effects of changes in the various forcings not their sum total. Except for solar activity, all these changes are directly and 100% attributable to human activity.

With a simple mathematical function it is then easy to conclude whether your or mine statements made were right or wrong.

Perhaps not so simple as you imagine…

For CO2 global temperature changes as ~2 - 4.5 deg C per doubling which is equivalent to a change of ~4.5 W/m^2 outgoing IR or a change of ~26W/m^2 in the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun . For Methane the amount of warming “per particle” is 20-50 times greater but the effect of doubling is much smaller. For Aerosols the relationship is far more complex and doesn’t readily fit any simplistic model, but much research has come up with the forcing presented in the chart.

 

[Reality Check]

Show me your evidence of the isotopes then. Show me the report with the whole scientific approach, places of measurment and whatnot on which your claim and their conclusion is based.
And once again (am I working with dyslectics here?) learn to f**** read. Volcanic activity was mentioned as one of the many natural sources.

You need to read the IPCC AR4 report with the whole scientific approach, places of measurment and whatnot on which the scientific claim is based. That lists the "evidence of the isotopes".

The evidence is also well covered in blogs, e.g.

• RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
• Skeptical Science: How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Volcanic activity is one of the many natural sources which are generally inconsequential compared to human sources. The exception is the short-term effects of large eruptions but that is an aerosol effect not CO2.

Reflection of the gasparticles, chemical reactions, katalysators, feedback mechanisms,.. You people ...

Who is "You people"?
Climate scientists certainly know about and take account of feedback mechanisms and "reflection of the gasparticles" (aerosol effects?).
AFAIK: Chemical reactions and "katalysators" (catalysts?) have little effect on climate. You may be thinking about the ozone layer but It's ozone cites the evidence that the ozone layer has been constant since 1995 bit temperatures still increased.

As stated, global warming is very complex, the comments I have thusfar received showed a great understanding of certain aspects but tend to be too narrow when it comes down to viewing the bigger image.
I'm not claiming to be right, I'm merely pointing out in what I think are inconsistencies in certain ways of thinking.

And once again we agree on the obvious: global warming is very complex.
This is a forum, not a university course on climate science. By its nature it will concentrate on "certain aspects" of climate science and not try to give anyone a complete education in climate science.

The scientific evidence with respect to CO2 only is that

• CO2 is a major driver of climate change. The more CO2, the higher the temperature.
• CO2 has been measured to have increased.
• Global temperatures have been measured to have increased.
• We thus have a correlation between CO2 levels and a mechanism linking CO2 to tempertaure (the greenhouse effect).
  This is evidence that global warming has been caused by CO2 increases.
• Human beings have been a major contributor of CO2 increases.
• Thus human beings have been (and still are) a major cause of global warming.

...
And with TOTAL I mean TOTAL and not from vague interpretations.

Unfortunately scientists do not obey your evey whim .
There are no "vague interpretations" in that graph. There are the scientific measurements of the various factors of radiative forcing.

To get back a bit to the subject: Can we control the temprature of the Earth?
Answer would be an obvious HELL NO.

The anwer would be an obvious HELL YES since we are already affecting the temperature of the Earth (but not as in the crackpot idea expressed by Bjarne).

However this is getting close to a derail from the thread's science woo theme into actual climate science. There are plenty of other threads on climate science. I suggest that you take your questions there where it is more likely that experts will answer them.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Dimitri
As stated, global warming is very complex, the comments I have thusfar received showed a great understanding of certain aspects but tend to be too narrow when it comes down to viewing the bigger image.
I'm not claiming to be right, I'm merely pointing out in what I think are inconsistencies in certain ways of thinki

Good cuz you are wrong.

and on this as well

Can we control the temprature of the Earth?
Answer would be an obvious HELL NO.

Hell YES - ANY industrial nation can pump enough S02 to reduce the temperature of the earth if they choose to.

Try looking up geo-engineering.

 

[bit_pattern]

CO2 on the other hand is also one of the less dangerous ones. Greenhouse gas H2O is far more dangerous due to a feedback mechanism. It also is responsible for a contribution of 36-72% (in comparisation: CO2 has about 9-26%). I should also admit I cannot state an exact percentage of contribution from the gasses towards the greenhouse effect.

These points jumped out at me:

A. while it's true that H2O has a higher radiative forcing than CO2 it is erroneous to say that it is "more dangerous". Atmospheric H2O is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, which put simply dictates that extra H2O will condense and fall harmlessly back to Earth as condensation and that the total level of H2O is driven by temperature (ie. higher temps lead to higher evaporation) rather than temperature being a function of H2O.

B. Yes, H2O is a feedback mechanism but it is not a forcing, as explained above - an increase is a function of temperature rises not a causation - whereas Co2 is a forcing and does directly contribute to higher temperatures it is by far "more dangerous" than H2O, not least because of teh fact that it accumulates in the atmosphere in a way that H2O never could.

C. Wikipedia, conveniently, does state an exact percentage of contribution from the gasses towards the greenhouse effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

 

[CapelDodger]

No one has ever said that CO2 has driven the last century of temperatures, rather that after the mid-1970's the correlation between the sun and global tempos diverged as CO2 became the more dominant forcing. For most of the last millennium there has been a very good solar/temp correlation, that however no longer exists.

We should also take into account vulcanism. The 20thCE was very quiet, which contributed significantly to the warming in the first few decades. The 19thCE, of course, was very active. The 17thCE was probably above average, and early Medieval times were apparently very quiet as well.

This kind of effect is referred to as "natural variation". Not magical nor mysterious, just natural, and the causes can be directly observed these days.

 

[CapelDodger]

Show me your evidence of the isotopes then.

Do you seriously doubt its existence?

Show me the report with the whole scientific approach, places of measurment and whatnot on which your claim and their conclusion is based.

Do you seriously think there's one report that provides all the evidence?

And once again (am I working with dyslectics here?) learn to f**** read. Volcanic activity was mentioned as one of the many natural sources.

Not a significant one, and certainly not a new one. Or do you have a report which says differently?

You may well be innumerate, but the difference between 385ppm and 280 ppm atmospheric CO2 is somewhat greater than 30%. This change has occurred over a very short period of time, and is something new. It's not caused by animals breathing more, it's not caused by volcanic activity, it's caused by digging up carbon and burning it in air. That process is new on an industrial scale, and in fact has produced far more CO2 than is needed to explain the increase (and continues to do so).

Much of the rest goes to explain the acidification of the oceans, which as another new phaenomenon. (Quite possibly a more critical one, but let's not digress.)

What I have mentioned was not a conspiracy theory but a plain fact for someone who is a bit up-to-date with climate policies and politics.

There are no plain facts in politics and policies, only apparent facts to those who have an ideology. A belief system. And they have no bearing here anyway. Belief systems are dealt with in Politics and in Religion and Philosophy.

 

[Furcifer]

Chemical reactions do not create or destroy energy and the earths atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.

Incorrect. The atmosphere absorbs 22% of the suns energy and reflects 26%.

 

[macdoc]

You are confusing albedo for the earth ( circa 30% ) with reflectivity of the atmosphere

As a result, the earth-atmosphere system has a combined albedo of about 30%, a number highly dependent on the local surface makeup, cover, and cloud ...

The atmosphere reflects about 6%

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html

If you are going to nitpick then
a) make sure you are correct
b) support it.

iomiller's casual comment

the earths atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.

stands...

 

[bit_pattern]

I knew those percentages ahd to be mistaken. Nicely spotted, Doc.

 

[lomiller]

iomiller's casual comment

stands...

Pretty much par for the course for the poster IMO. I.E. proceed as if I had said the earths atmosphere was “completely” transparent to sunlight rather then “largely” transparent and then try to argue the detail I never posted was “wrong” without offering anything that has any baring on my argument.

by the way that first letter in a lower case L.