Is the earth going to heat up no matter what we do?

Question

For millions of years the planet has delayed global warming by storing solar energy in the form of long chain hydrocarbons (OIL). Humans have started to release this energy over the last couple centuries. As we release energy which was stored the planet has warmed but none of our activities can achieve a "stable" climate unless we figure out how to release just as much energy back into space as we recieve from the sun.

If humans had never evolved then the production of oil would have continued unabated until the planet was covered with it and it eventually burst into an massive global firestorm, sure that would be millions of more years from now but maybe nature has developed humans as a way to relieve that build up and eventually regulate the energy flow. Still the question needs to be, how do we get a "stable" climate on this planet?

Answer 1

the problem is not the energy released by the coal and oil that we've burned.

the world gets hotter and colder each year.

the problem is that the co2 that has been released is acting like an extra blanket that you put on your bed when it's cold.

there is a difference between the energy released, and the energy retained.

it's the 'retained' part that is altering the long term average temperature of the earth.

however, the earth did not cause humans to evolve.

it's an accident of nature.

if we consider that many species have evolved and come into being in the last few hundred million years, if there was a problem that needed solving, why did it take so long for us to get here?

Answer 2

In the short term yes.  We are committed to a certain amount of warming and the planet is starting to respond.  Some warming is natural, but a significant proportion is caused by human activity.  Reducing emissions and better managing land scape changes and farming can reduce anthropogenic emissions and slow the accelerated rate of warming in the short to medium term.  This give ecosystems more time to adjust and allow humans to identify changes occurring and respond.

In the long term, we may be able to return to a near natural rate of change depending on the actions we choose today.  The longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive this becomes and the less control we have.  That is why the call for action by scientist.

The first step (cutting emissions) is the hardest. Once we do that, we my look to altering energy flows, but that will be tricky on a planetary scale.  Look at the trouble with cutting emissons (promoting conservation, alternative fuels, etc).

Answer 3

Yes the earth will experience warming cycles and cooling cycles no matter what mankind does. Those are the plain scientific facts of the matter. It's like the sun rising and setting, global warming and cooling have been going on since the dawn of time.

Just ask any Geologist.

Answer 4

As a geologist, I understand better than most that climate has never been stable, isn't stable, and never will be unless our technology and knowledge increases by many magnitudes.  The chemical energy released in converting hydrocarbons to CO2 is not what causes global warming.  That reminds me of a Sting commercial a few years ago,"The forest burns, the earth heats up, the greenhouse effect."  It doesn't matter if leftist don't know the science, they are treated as experts (i.e Al Gore, and every Hollywood bimbo and bimbob you could name).  There is a new psychological disorder that is festering in the world, it is the fear of warmth and it is generally associated with fear of corporations and prosperity and is accompanied by delusions of knowledge.  It is also associated with insatiable urge to hug glaciers.

Answer 5

Some, but we can slow down the man made part of the change.

For thousands of years climate was relatively stable, until we started messing things up.  It will take a long time to fix that, and we won't avoid some change, but we CAN avoid the worst effects.

Data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Forget about Al Gore.  Do you think these guys get their info from Gore?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 6

Based on observations, measurements and models scientists try to predict what the planet will do.  No one knows with absolute certainty.

The climate isn't "stable," per se, meaning that over extended periods of time there are cycles, it will fluctuate.  The debate in this forum is how humans have altered natural cycles.  I don't think that nature "developed humans as a way to relieve" a build up.  I do believe that humans have the capacity to affect change on a scale that is faster than the planet and its many inhabitants can adapt to.

Fortunately, we have some very smart, motivated people on the planet who have been studying the situation and are prepared to help implement mitigative measures.  How that plays out is a question for the future.  Let's check in again in 20 years and see what's happening then, shall we?

Answer 7

Not necessarily.  It would be possible for us to cause the planet to cool if we did something foolhardy like sending a load of aerosols up into the atmosphere.  That would have seriously bad consequences for life on Earth, but if we emitted enough aerosols, it could overcome the greenhouse effect and cause the planet to cool.

So it's not true that the Earth will continue to heat up *no matter what we do*.  Of course, we're not going to do anything foolish like that, so it is true the Earth is going to continue to heat up for a while, because due to the CO2 we've already emitted, there's still another 1°F warming "in the pipeline".

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/cli...

To get the planet's energy back in balance, all we have to do is stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  That doesn't mean the climate will stop changing of course, because there are other external factors impacting the climate (solar output, orbital cycles around the Sun, etc.), but the planet's energy budget will be in balance again.  That's what we're shooting for.

Answer 8

Some scientist think the world is going to heat up, while others think warming is on a break.

"Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...

Some scientist think global warming causes more hurricanes, while other scientist believe global warming causes fewer hurricanes.

""global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States," according to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Miami Lab and the University of Miami."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/2...

Some scientist and others who study climate change think we only have 18 months to act, while others think it could be 10 years before we're doomed.

Then some think we'll turn into cannibals and others think the temperatures will reach 450 degrees and rain sulfuric acid.

The truth is - Global warming can be anything you want it to be.  No matter what you say about "global warming" your statements cannot be proven to be wrong, so they must be right.

Answer 9

One thing all of you Al Gore lovers neglect to mention are the ice ages. We all sit here so smugly announcing the end of the world as the gospel. It would be pretty brazen for us to assume we know everything about this planet considering the short amount of time we've been on it.

Answer 10

From greenhouse gasses, yes, the planet hasn't reached an equilibrium temperature yeat from the gasses we're released already, even if we stopped releasing all carbon tomorrow.  Carbon dioxide has a meaningful persistence time of thousands of years.

Addressing carbon can't be acomplished no matter what we do, if the developing world (80% of global population) is allowed to increase carbon emissions.  

With regards to black carbon (soot), it can have 60% of the heating influence as CO2, but we've proven that we can rapidly and cost-effectivley remove it from major sources such as coal power plants.  It's a proven solution with a payback in weeks (vs. thousands of years for CO2 reductrion), but for some reason CO2 has stolen the hearts and minds of the press and politicians.

Deforestation and land use changes caused by skyrocketing global population is a major component as well.  We have the ability to stabilize or decrease population, we simply refuse to consider it.

I would have to conclude that we have the ability to address each of these factors with a coordinated global effort.  Unfotunately no discussions are underway to bring major emitters like China and India into such a global effort, so we may as well plan for the worst and save our resources to pay for our responses to the interesting times to come.

Answer 11

Your question assumes that the climate is supposed to be stable. The massive amounts of fossil fuels in the ground indicate that that organic material was once active in the biosphere. Which means it was either part of the biomass of living creatures and plants or in the atmosphere. Which would naturally mean and is born out by geological data, that the world was much warmer in the past. And also had a far greater volume of life. So, what is truly the consequence of unlocking all of this organic mass and energy of the past? Looking at it logically, the atmosphere would become warmer and rich in CO2. This would be a perfect environment for plants, leading to a worldwide vegetation bloom. As the plant mas increased CO2 levels would drop and O2 levels would rise. Temperatures would level off and animal life would thrive. It would basically be a return to Jurassic conditions. Would this be a change? yes. Would it completely disrupt modern life as we know it? yes. Is it wrong? Now that is a matter for philosophers. It is my opinion that the climate is more stable and more natural when this energy is released and in circulation in the life-cycle. It was the mass extinction events of the past that took large volumes of bio-mass out of circulation at once, that led to an unstable climate that we have been dealing with ever since. Now we have gotten accustomed to life as it is now, and most of us are averse to change. But we live on a changing planet. So we seek to stabilize an inherently unstable condition for our own comfort. Perhaps that is more wrong.

Answer 12

Right now it's cooling back down.  But yes.  It warms up and cools down no matter what we do.  It's natural.