More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bill Swadley

Bill Swadley

Posted: March 7, 2011 06:00 PM

The Earth's Volcanostat


I don't know any climate scientists personally, but if I did I'd ask him or her a question I've had ever since I first heard about global warming. My question is this: Assuming that something like the Gaia Theory is correct, what are the chances that our planet is already fighting global warming with or without our assistance?

The Gaia Theory, simply put, states that Earth is capable of regulating itself much like our bodies do, to maintain a balanced system, fight off disease, and keep things like body temperature within an acceptable range. If this is so then, like a home automatic heating and air conditioning system, a kind of thermostat would determine what actions were required to maintain the planet's health and equilibrium.

Scientific study of volcanoes over the last 30 years or so has determined that large eruptions can and do reduce the mean temperature of large areas of the planet, sometimes for many years. If volcanoes are simply random events, each one tuned to its own cycles and rhythms and physical affects, then it's likely that intermittent volcanic activity will have some small impact, but not lasting long enough to be of any real benefit in the fight against global warming.

What if, though, the volcanoes we've been experiencing over the past few decades aren't random, disconnected incidents? What if our living planet is reacting as an organism rather than a big hunk of rock? It gets too hot, the planet has a physical reaction, and turns down the thermostat. Lower thermostat = more volcanoes = cooler planet. We have no way to know, of course, whether this is happening or not, or if it is whether it will be effective, but I'm watching with great interest as each new volcanic eruption is reported and/or predicted.

It may still be too late for us either way. Since the planet's second-hand is gauged in millennia, not only is it unlikely to help us undo the mess we've caused in time for us, but a severe enough reaction to global warming by the planet could very well put us in a long nuclear winter, the old cure-being-worse-than-the-disease.

Kind of like that Twilight Zone episode where everyone is baking to death because the Earth is moving closer to the sun. [spoiler alert!] Turns out the main character was only dreaming that apocalypse, because, in reality, the Earth is moving away from the sun and everyone is freezing to death.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
08:15 AM on 03/09/2011
The earth is fixing itself it a lot like the rapture. The earth has 'no reason' to support life. If most of the planets in the universe are not life sustaining, it would seem giving the Earth other special capabilities is stretching the idea a lot.

We can hope that the planet doesn't think riding it self of humans is a good thing!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Swadley
Writer, finance exec, dad
02:31 PM on 03/09/2011
"We can hope that the planet doesn't think riding it self of humans is a good thing!"

If it could think, my guess is it would be something like, "I have got to get these a$$holes off me!"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
02:37 PM on 03/09/2011
I tend to agree!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:41 AM on 03/09/2011
Nope. Sorry. Not happening.

Vague, mystical "the Earth will fix itself" ramblings are not helpful. The only way the problem can be solved before it's much too late is for us to take real, concrete action. This cannot happen if the political will to do so is not present. Anything that tends to sap the poitical will, whether it's anti-science denialaism or "Gaia will fix itself", is immensely damaging to the planet and its inhabitants.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Swadley
Writer, finance exec, dad
12:34 PM on 03/09/2011
Agreed and I don't think I ultimately painted a rosy picture for obvious reasons. I've found that with HP readers, you don't really have to spell things out for them. (I also always wonder when I read comments like this if the person read the whole piece or just the first paragraph.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
02:11 PM on 03/09/2011
Yes, I read the whole thing. :)

HP readers tend to be pretty good, but they don't always get things right. Last week there was a post about a study that showed that a regional nuclear war would have a significant cooling effect globally, and an unbelievable number of readers read this as though someone had suggested nuclear war as a SOLUTION to global warming.

People do get the wrong idea, and I didn't want anyone to get the idea that the Earth is going to fix itself. Oh, it will, eventually, but long after it's too late for us. We have to do it ourselves.
photo
PoloniumMan
"It worked." J. Robert Oppenheimer
10:11 PM on 03/08/2011
Interesting idea, although, the time for the planet to respond with volcanoes would be much slower than the progress of AGW. It would be like someone deciding to eat a can of beans to generate farts in response to a person they don't like standing too close. If the planet did react in such ways, I would guess there would be a bit of a hysteresis built into the system; ignoring brief temperature perturbations and instead reacting to larger long term increases.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
01:53 PM on 03/09/2011
Yes, but what volcanoes mainly do is add MORE caron dioxide to the system. There's some short-term cooling from the aerosols, but it takes MUCH longer to remove the CO2. In fact, one of the five mass extinction events in Earth's history is believed to have been caused by the climate warming that resulted from massive volcanic activity in Siberia.

So I don't think we can count on volcanoes to counteract global warming. Big ones would have the opposite effect.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bill Swadley
Writer, finance exec, dad
02:30 PM on 03/09/2011
"Big ones would have the opposite effect. "

Which is exactly the point I made at the end of the piece.

When the planet does save itself one way or another, it probably won't save us or most of it's current, warm-blooded residents.