Is Life our planet's temperature regulator?

[Chuck Phipps]

Given:

1. The actual planet Earth; the rock in space, doesn't care at all what temperature it is.  

2. Over the last 10,000 years or so, the average temperature of the surface of the Earth has varied less than 2°C.  Quite a bit less, in fact.

Current assumptions:

1. The atmosphere; its composition, specifically, is the main player in determining global heating/cooling trends.  Add more greenhouse gases and the temperature rises.  Lower the concentration and the temperature will fall.

2. Man is currently the most responsible for the increase in these gases.  

Observation:

1. We have had a remarkably stable average temperature over the eons, even when Man arguably had no effect at all on anything.

2. That degree (pardon the pun) of consistency requires some form of active feedback to be in operation.

Posit:

I suggest that the Life itself of our planet is that active feedback.  I believe that there are some forms of life on the planet that thrive in colder conditions and some forms that thrive in warmer ones.  Those that do better in the cold will have some form of emission or characteristic that will lead to rising temperatures over the long haul and those that do well in the warmth will have the opposite effect.  It might be their very color, which in abundance would perhaps change the albedo of a significant enough area to reduce or enhance cumulative solar radiation.  Perhaps they directly emit or consume greenhouse gases in greater quantities, depending on the circumstances.  It could be anything.

The point is that most of the models I have seen seem to think that the physics of the atmosphere are the whole story.  There is no feedback from the atmosphere to account for the steadiness of the temperature.  Life, on the other hand, can change slowly, but drastically in the epochal time frames necessary to regulate our planet.

Of course I could be wrong.  Any comments?

[StringJunky]

It sounds like you are referring to the Gaia Hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

[Chuck Phipps]

It does, doesn't it.

I've heard of Gaia as a name for Earth, but didn't know it was a hypothesis so close to my own view.  Thanks.

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, Chuck Phipps said:

It does, doesn't it.

I've heard of Gaia as a name for Earth, but didn't know it was a hypothesis so close to my own view.  Thanks.

Pat yourself on the back for thinking of a reasonable idea, even if it has already been conceive. As the old saying goes: great minds think alike. It has many critics but most people in the field agree that it made people think in a different way about the Earth over the years and treat its functioning more holistically.

Edited May 28, 2018 by StringJunky

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

Given:

1. The actual planet Earth; the rock in space, doesn't care at all what temperature it is.  

2. Over the last 10,000 years or so, the average temperature of the surface of the Earth has varied less than 2°C.  Quite a bit less, in fact.

Current assumptions:

1. The atmosphere; its composition, specifically, is the main player in determining global heating/cooling trends.  Add more greenhouse gases and the temperature rises.  Lower the concentration and the temperature will fall.

2. Man is currently the most responsible for the increase in these gases.  

Observation:

1. We have had a remarkably stable average temperature over the eons, even when Man arguably had no effect at all on anything.

2. That degree (pardon the pun) of consistency requires some form of active feedback to be in operation.

Posit:

I suggest that the Life itself of our planet is that active feedback.  I believe that there are some forms of life on the planet that thrive in colder conditions and some forms that thrive in warmer ones.  Those that do better in the cold will have some form of emission or characteristic that will lead to rising temperatures over the long haul and those that do well in the warmth will have the opposite effect.  It might be their very color, which in abundance would perhaps change the albedo of a significant enough area to reduce or enhance cumulative solar radiation.  Perhaps they directly emit or consume greenhouse gases in greater quantities, depending on the circumstances.  It could be anything.

The point is that most of the models I have seen seem to think that the physics of the atmosphere are the whole story.  There is no feedback from the atmosphere to account for the steadiness of the temperature.  Life, on the other hand, can change slowly, but drastically in the epochal time frames necessary to regulate our planet.

Of course I could be wrong.  Any comments?

 

6 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

Any comments?

 

Well yes geologists have come to accept Life as a geophysical agent.

But as you observe the timescale of action by life is much longer than annual variations over 10,000 years.

So stromatolites created the oxygen rich atmosphere over periods lasting billions of years, and they are still going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

Some marine life plays its part in returning carbon to the rocks, from whence it came originally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_platform

But there are also many inert agents in play some of longer periods than this.

Milankovich cycles.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

 

Not sure what you mean by 'active' feedback, as you have distinguished it from non active feedback?

 

But you have certainly started with some perceptive thoughts +1

They just need some tidying up and pushing into shape.

Edited May 28, 2018 by studiot

[Chuck Phipps]

Thanks for the comment.  In retrospect, "active feedback" is probably a redundant expression.  A regulating feedback is by its nature "active".  I work at a company that makes ovens; the big ones for Oscar Mayer, Swift, Conagra, etc.  In order to maintain a constant temperature and humidity, those attributes are constantly checked and the heat source and ventilation is adjusted as necessary.  Without that ability, there would be no stability.  The same must somehow be true of the Earth, too, or it wouldn't be stable, either.  I'm sure that this is all taken into account by real climate scientists, but I never hear that part of the model mentioned.  

Edited May 28, 2018 by Chuck Phipps

[studiot]

29 minutes ago, Chuck Phipps said:

Thanks for the comment.  In retrospect, "active feedback" is probably a redundant expression.  A regulating feedback is by its nature "active".  I work at a company that makes ovens; the big ones for Oscar Mayer, Swift, Conagra, etc.  In order to maintain a constant temperature and humidity, those attributes are constantly checked and the heat source and ventilation is adjusted as necessary.  Without that ability, there would be no stability.  The same must somehow be true of the Earth, too, or it wouldn't be stable, either.  I'm sure that this is all taken into account by real climate scientists, but I never hear that part of the model mentioned.  

Well climate models of any distinction include various feedback mechanisms, but I didn't think this was the prime thrust of your thread.

I will see if I can sort out some references if you like.

However in electronics you can have active or only passive components in a feedback loop.

The point of an active component is that it is self energised, (so far as the circuit it participates in is concerned) and so can offer control at low to very low to zero levels of output.

Passive feedback cannot do this as it takes some power from the controlled sources and if the (desired) output of the controlled source is zero then there is not power to be had to drive the feedback loop.

This is why, for instance, it is impossible to remove crossover distortion in amplifiers by passive feedback alone.

 

How about the other points I made?

 

Edit, I can't now edit my previous post but I see I made a silly mistake.

But as you observe the timescale of action by life is much longer than annual average variations over 10,000 years.

This line now makes proper sense.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

 The point is that most of the models I have seen seem to think that the physics of the atmosphere are the whole story.  There is no feedback from the atmosphere to account for the steadiness of the temperature.  Life, on the other hand, can change slowly, but drastically in the epochal time frames necessary to regulate our planet.

Of course I could be wrong.  Any comments?

I'm not sure what models you are looking at, but surely orbital/orientation characteristics and albedo come into play in any reasonable model.

[Chuck Phipps]

Sorry for the quick replay and the time to get back with some more about your reply.  I was participating in our town's Memorial Day service.

I think we are getting sidetracked by our definitions of feedback.  I'm no scientist (as if that wasn't clear), but even your last comment about tilt and albedo doesn't have any of what I would call active feedback.  The tilt is the tilt and while it does change over long periods of time, it cannot be adjusted in reaction to any conditions.  The albedo, while it can change due to environmental conditions such as snow in the winter reflecting more radiation, doesn't necessarily counter the temperature.  Quite the opposite, in the example I have given.

My only reason for giving my views in the first place was that most of the discussions I have seen have centered on the levels of greenhouse gases and their causes.  When I then hear predictions as precise as a half of a degree rise in a hundred years based on the physics of the atmosphere, I tend to lean more skeptical; not of the science behind the predictions but by the lack of mention of mitigating or unknown factors that could offset these predictions, such as the adaptation of life, perhaps even microbial life, that could change everything. 

I have to go now, but I do appreciate that more informed people are taking the time to respond.

ps. I hope I didn't ramble too much.  It was hot and humid out there and my brain might have been baked a bit.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

 I think we are getting sidetracked by our definitions of feedback.  I'm no scientist (as if that wasn't clear), but even your last comment about tilt and albedo doesn't have any of what I would call active feedback.  The tilt is the tilt and while it does change over long periods of time, it cannot be adjusted in reaction to any conditions.  The albedo, while it can change due to environmental conditions such as snow in the winter reflecting more radiation, doesn't necessarily counter the temperature.  Quite the opposite, in the example I have given.

I wasn't critiquing the feedback issue, just the claim that the atmosphere was the sole physics contribution.

But to say albedo is not a feedback mechanism would be incorrect. Snow and ice do not behave the same as water or land, as you note, and that does affect the temperature.

2 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

My only reason for giving my views in the first place was that most of the discussions I have seen have centered on the levels of greenhouse gases and their causes.  When I then hear predictions as precise as a half of a degree rise in a hundred years based on the physics of the atmosphere, I tend to lean more skeptical; not of the science behind the predictions but by the lack of mention of mitigating or unknown factors that could offset these predictions, such as the adaptation of life, perhaps even microbial life, that could change everything. 

"life" is not a term that would go into an energy balance. Unknown factors would not be included because they are unknown.

If you think there's something missing you need evidence or a mechanism. 

 

21 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

Given:

1. The actual planet Earth; the rock in space, doesn't care at all what temperature it is.  

2. Over the last 10,000 years or so, the average temperature of the surface of the Earth has varied less than 2°C.  Quite a bit less, in fact.

What makes you think this needs further explanation? IOW why should there be a larger variation?

21 hours ago, Chuck Phipps said:

Observation:

1. We have had a remarkably stable average temperature over the eons, even when Man arguably had no effect at all on anything.

Not so much

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File%3AEPICA_temperature_plot.svg