Study gives first proof that the Earth has a natural thermostat

August 15, 2017, Goldschmidt Conference

New data provides the first proof that the Earth has a natural thermostat which enables the planet to recover from extremes of climate change - but the recovery timescales are significant. This work is presented today at the Goldschmidt conference in Paris, and has just been published in the peer-reviewed journal Geochemical Perspectives Letters.

The idea of a natural temperature thermostat was first proposed in 1981, but until now no-one has been able to provide data to show that the recovery from the hot and cold temperature fluctuations were associated with a specific mechanism.

Now a group of British scientists has shown that recovery from global cooling events is associated with changes in the rate of of rocks, which is the main mechanism of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. In weathering, rocks are dissolved by rain and river water; the process removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which is then transported to the seas by rivers to be locked up in carbon-rich rocks such as limestone. The more weathering, the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.

The team had previously found evidence supporting the role of weathering in cooling the Earth in times of high temperature. This current work confirms that a slow-down of weathering takes place in cold periods, and so supports the concept of an "Earth thermostat".

The researchers were able to use the Lithium isotope ratios in rocks as a measure of weathering. They examined rocks from the period of the Hirnantian glaciation - around 445 million years ago - which correspond with the second greatest extinction of life in history, when around 85% of marine species were wiped out, due to the cooling and a dramatic drop in sea levels (estimated at around 80m) as water was locked into ice fields and glaciers.

The samples, which came from Anticosti Island (Quebec, Canada), and Dob's Linn (near Moffat, Scotland), show that global chemical weathering rate declined by a factor of four temporarily during the 5°C cooling that caused the glaciation, removing less CO2, allowing the climate to recover from the cooling.

Lead scientist, Dr Philip Pogge von Strandmann (University College London and Birkbeck, University of London) said:

"From looking at the relative abundance of lithium isotopes in ocean-derived rocks, we were able to confirm that chemical weathering is the driver of the Earth's natural thermostat. When there is a warmer climate, there is more weathering, and when it is cooler there is less weathering: this is what you would expect, given that chemical reactions go faster with increasing temperature. So more weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts a break on global warming. However, when the temperature cools, the reverse is true, and less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere in cold periods. This is the process that has allowed life to survive on Earth for around 4 billion years, and is what we are reporting in Paris".

Nevertheless, we need to be clear that the changes in temperature are gradual, and that recovery can take hundreds of thousands of years. Given the rapid increase in the rate of at present, this kind of wait is not an option for us".

Commenting, Professor Jonathan Payne (Professor and Chair, Geological Sciences, Stanford University, CA, USA) said:

"The theory that chemical weathering provides a stabilizing feedback on Earth's climate goes back several decades, but observational confirmation of this hypothesis has been incomplete. In this study, Pogge von Strandmann and colleagues add a critical new piece of confirmation by using lithium isotopes to demonstrate a reduction in the chemical weathering rate associated with climate cooling - exactly the behaviour predicted if rates of serve as a stabilizing feedback on climate. This study illustrates beautifully how new isotope proxy systems are enabling critical new tests of hypotheses both old and new and, in this case, confirming a theory that helps to explain why the Earth has enabled life to flourish continuously for more than 3.5 billion years".

Explore further: Weathering of rocks a poor regulator of global temperatures

More information: P.A.E. Pogge von Strandmann et al. Global climate stabilisation by chemical weathering during the Hirnantian glaciation, Geochemical Perspectives Letters (2017). DOI: 10.7185/geochemlet.1726

Related Stories

Weathering of rocks a poor regulator of global temperatures

May 22, 2017

A new University of Washington study shows that the textbook understanding of global chemical weathering—in which rocks are dissolved, washed down rivers and eventually end up on the ocean floor to begin the process again—does ...

Rocks can restore our climate... after 300,000 years

July 9, 2013

(Phys.org) —A study of a global warming event that happened 93 million years ago suggests that the Earth can recover from high carbon dioxide emissions faster than previously thought, but that this process takes around ...

Recommended for you

Maximizing the environmental benefits of autonomous vehicles

February 15, 2018

The added weight, electricity demand and aerodynamic drag of the sensors and computers used in autonomous vehicles are significant contributors to their lifetime energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new ...

21 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aksdad
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2017
And on a much shorter timescale we have clouds. In many regions of the earth, as the diurnal temperature warms, water vapor (humidity) condenses and forms clouds in the afternoon which cool the earth by blocking sunlight. When rain falls, it cools even more. It's a common and widespread natural feedback mechanism that the global circulation (climate) models are unable to account for which is one of the reasons they are so inaccurate.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2017
And on a much shorter timescale we have clouds. In many regions of the earth, as the diurnal temperature warms, water vapor (humidity) condenses and forms clouds in the afternoon which cool the earth by blocking sunlight. When rain falls, it cools even more. It's a common and widespread natural feedback mechanism that the global circulation (climate) models are unable to account for which is one of the reasons they are so inaccurate.


And in the absence of intelligence or facts, we have sackbag.

Sackbag is unable to differentiate between cause, effect, or the fact that most phenomena entrain several processes at once, utterly failing to differentiate between physical and magical.

Sackbag. What a MAROON.
dudester
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2017
Yes, as I just wrote in another comment on another climate article where you're posting your happy happy joy joy, the vast amounts of water we pump out of the Ogalalla Aquifer to irrigate our burning, thirsty crops does indeed evaporate, and is increasing humidity across the region, and this humidity does contribute to increasing cloud formation, and these clouds are forming into increasingly violent super cell thunder storms which increasingly produce damaging winds and heavy hail. And when all the water is gone from the Ogalalla Aquifer (about another 20 years, tops), the humidity will drop, the clouds will disappear, and the Great Plains will truly be the Great American Desert. I've been fighting this region for 60 years and the line of development is clear.
bschott
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2017
Sackbag. What a MAROON.

So, are you saying clouds do not aid in cooling? Or do you just hate him because of his posts in general?
Just asking because the weathering of rocks is pretty effen hilarious considering how many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker and on a much more pronounced scale than cooling by CO2 removal.
Aerosols from volcano eruptions, Aerosols from wildfires, minor reductions in solar input, changes in ocean circulation, larger than normal fluctuation of the polar vortex....
Was the weathering of rocks responsible for the warming hiatus for the first part of this century? Oh yeah...CO2 levels still rose. There's that pesky non-correlative nature of CO2 religion rearing it's ugly head again.....
Then we have the recent drop in sea level measured by NASA, another thorn in the side of the devout.
http://www.climat...ch-2017/
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2017
"Sea levels are falling: NASA data: Sea levels fell in 2016 from Jan 2016 to March 2017"

.........not only this, the data I've seen about Pacific islands that are experiencing land loss are islands which are actually sinking into the ocean. To top this off, other islands just a few hundred miles away are reporting rising land mass.

So, the conundrum for the AGWs, how does the math work for rising ocean levels versus rising land mass, or loss of land mass versus dropping ocean levels? The AGWs of course have never seen a Differential Equation they could solve, so they'll be along shortly & start the usual name calling rants.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2017
.........not only this,

Tell me about it. Here's another major "happening" that went for the large part unreported because of the agenda it exposes -
http://dailycalle...numbers/
Often referred to as data smoothing by those who wish people would just swallow what they are fed without looking too much into it.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2017
Sackbag. What a MAROON.

So, are you saying clouds do not aid in cooling? Or do you just hate him because of his posts in general?


No, biscuit, I'm saying that clouds only provide local, reflective cooling. The heat of condensation --ever heard of that?-- is then partly re-emitted a la the greenhouse effect, just to make a couple of examples. Here you betray your equal lack of understanding with sackbag.

Or do you just hate him because of his posts in general?


No, biscuit.

Sackbag, again --like you-- isn't worthy of hate. But certainly worthy of the deepest contempt, for pretending knowledge that he, she, or it doesn't possess, and for making ANY CLAIMS AT ALL based upon that non-knowledge.

contd
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2017
contd

Just asking because the weathering of rocks is pretty effen hilarious


Hilarious, indeed, biscuit, considering the timescale involved, which you don't, since this is some of that non-knowledge you possess that renders your claims meaningless

considering how many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker and on a much more pronounced scale than cooling by CO2 removal.


Considering, biscuit, that these Tstats you ballyhoo are all extremely short-term, and generally localized in effect, acting on timescales of days to a few hundreds of years. Erosion and deposition work over very, very long timescales. Got any idea how long it takes to form a meter of carbonate rock? Way more than a few days, smart guy.

contd
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2017
contd

Aerosols from volcano eruptions, Aerosols from wildfires, minor reductions in solar input, changes in ocean circulation, larger than normal fluctuation of the polar vortex....


All short term, geniusboy.

The exception being, of course, changes to ocean circulation due to PLATE TECTONICS, or massive lava flows, Siberian, Deccan Traps, e.g.

Even these are offset by the process of weathering and deposition, since it is an ongoing and never idle geologic process, occurring continually, regardless of the infrequent changes to ocean circulation and even less frequent occurrences of massive, sustained volcanism.

In fact, it is the single most important coutervailing effect to those other mechanisms, and the reason why the surface temperature tends to return to an equilibrium similar to the present, again and again.

So, biscuit, are you going to tell everyone here --once again-- just how much you don't know?

Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2017
"Sea levels are falling: NASA data: Sea levels fell in 2016 from Jan 2016 to March 2017"

.........not only this, the data I've seen about Pacific islands that are experiencing land loss are islands which are actually sinking into the ocean. To top this off, other islands just a few hundred miles away are reporting rising land mass.

So, the conundrum for the AGWs, how does the math work for rising ocean levels versus rising land mass, [...] Differential Equation they could solve, so they'll be along shortly & start the usual name calling rants.


We note that you fail to post an actual link for that opening gambit, Bunny.

Therefore -as if there were any actual question of its legitimacy-- it and the rest of your comment is dismissed as hogwash.

Why don't you at least do us all the courtesy of finding some NEW HOGWASH with which to pollute this forum?

Intellectual Bankrurtcy is the handmaiden of Moral.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2017
.........not only this,

Tell me about it. Here's another major "happening" that went for the large part unreported because of the agenda it exposes -

Often referred to as data smoothing by those who wish people would just swallow what they are fed without looking too much into it.


Often referred to as "mudslinging". If this Woman has done the work which proves her claim of "manipulation", then she therefore must needs produce it --does she not?

Otherwise, she's just waving around a "List", much like your old pal, Joe McCarthy.

Right, biscuit?

Just like I said to your trollbrother Bunny --Intellectual Bankruptcy is the handmaiden of Moral.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
Gotta love a rant! Especially from a guy who calls me biscuit....and whose rant completely supported the point I stated in my first post....I love when you guys get so pissed you do that.
Demonstration: My assessment -
the weathering of rocks is pretty effen hilarious considering how many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker and on a much more pronounced scale than cooling by CO2 removal.

My angry supporter -
Hilarious, indeed, biscuit, considering the timescale involved, which you don't

mentioned the timescale....gets told he didn't consider the timescale...(snicker)
Considering, biscuit, that these Tstats you ballyhoo are all extremely short-term,

another oooops
and generally localized in effect,

Volcanos, AMO/PDO, and solar input are localized effects are they...funnelcake?
As to the long range weathering...I never said anything about it or the science behind it, but glad you got some typing practice in, funnelcake.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
Often referred to as "mudslinging". If this Woman has done the work which proves her claim of "manipulation", then she therefore must needs produce it --does she not?

The only way you could have posted something this stupid is if you didn't actually read the link...funnelcake. They name the dates, the stations where the "adjustments" took place, what the temperature s changed from and to, and have statements from those responsible regarding the "adjustments"....all named in the link that a lazy funnelcake didn't bother to read....
Intellectual Bankruptcy is the handmaiden of belief without question...and apparently lazy funnelcakes.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2017
Gotta love a rant! Especially from a guy who calls me biscuit....and whose rant completely supported the point I stated in my first post....I love when you guys get so pissed you do that.
Demonstration: My assessment -

the weathering of rocks is pretty effen hilarious considering how many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker and on a much more pronounced scale than cooling by CO2 removal.

My angry supporter -

Hilarious, indeed, biscuit, considering the timescale involved, which you don't

mentioned the timescale....gets told he didn't consider the timescale...(snicker)


Except(snicker) you didn't(snicker). You (snicker)(snicker)(snicker) only mentioned a scale OF EFFECT(snicker).

You can't even(snicker) keep your own lies sorted, you sniggering buffoon.

Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2017

and generally localized in effect,

Volcanos, AMO/PDO, and solar input are localized effects are they...funnelcake?

As to the long range weathering...I never said anything about it or the science behind it, but glad you got some typing practice in, funnelcake.


Very poor job of jumbling things up in that tiny trollnode you think of as a "brain', biscuit.

A jumble of decontextetualized misrepresentations like that might fool the igtards at stormfront, but won't wash here, as your apparent inability to understand written english is nothing new or notable.

On the other hand, it is pretty amusing, biscuit, to watch your desperate attempts to escape the snares you set for yourself while you were weaving your ever-so-clever web of deceit, which you fancy(snicker) is far too complex and intellectually superior for anyone to be able to deconstruct. But alas- your funnelcake fantasy is only half-baked...

What a MAROON.

Sorry --maroon BISCUIT.

bschott
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2017
Except(snicker) you didn't(snicker). You (snicker)(snicker)(snicker) only mentioned a scale OF EFFECT(snicker).

Oh oh...better break it down even more succinctly for the lightheaded funnelcake....
many active "natural thermostats" the earth has that act far quicker

See that word quicker...I know it isn't a sciency word...but it does mean the same as:
extremely short term

acting on timescales of days to a few hundreds of years.

(your words above)
So funnelcake....you can't comprehend English, and comment on link content without reading the actual link, and accuse people of lying without being able to point out a lie...I guess you're fitting in well here.

Enjoy
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
You can't even(snicker) keep your own lies sorted, you sniggering buffoon


Hey, Cally, can you solve a Differential Equation? ( that question should really get you revved up)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
Predictable: article is published stating there is a homeostasis that opposes both climate warming and cooling, said homeostasis operating over periods of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

#climatedeniers caper and whine and lie claiming "See, we told you so, global warming isn't any big deal," completely ignoring the timescales involved.

Basically I don't think they know the difference between a hundred years, a thousand years, and a hundred thousand years. #climatedenierscantcount.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
Predictable, guy with cognitive disorder shows up and misses the entire point....and really wants to show it.
"See, we told you so, global warming isn't any big deal,"

I didn't read that anywhere above...anyone else?
#lostinhisownreality
Basically I don't think they know the difference between a hundred years, a thousand years, and a hundred thousand years. #climatedenierscantcount

First of all, it's clear you don't think...period. Secondly, another comment totally unrelated to the discussion...or are you mumbling to yourself over in the corner about some other timing debate you were involved in?
#desperatelysearchingforselfvalidation
Glad you came by for some comedy relief....Cal was getting pretty wound up.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2017
No, biscuit,

You can't wiggle out of this one.

You wanted to downplay the process that has the largest magnitude of effect over pretty much all time scales by describing it as "effen hilarious" when there were mutliple short-term processes that acted more quickly, one supposes that you meant that the former was therefore rendered meaningless.

If that is what you meant, then all your jibberjabber is wasted.

If this wasn't what you meant, then explain what you did mean, and we can dispense with all this circular argumentation.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2017
You can't even(snicker) keep your own lies sorted, you sniggering buffoon


Hey, Cally, can you solve a Differential Equation? ( that question should really get you revved up)



Why do you ask, Bunny-- do you need me to help you with your homework?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.