Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jennifer Chu writes:

The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

earth
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Now, a study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink, keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

Just how does it accomplish this? A likely mechanism is “silicate weathering”—a geological process by which the slow and steady weathering of silicate rocks involves chemical reactions that ultimately draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into ocean sediments, trapping the gas in rocks.

Scientists have long suspected that silicate weathering plays a major role in regulating the Earth’s carbon cycle. The mechanism of silicate weathering could provide a geologically constant force in keeping carbon dioxide—and global temperatures—in check. But there’s never been direct evidence for the continual operation of such a feedback, until now.

The new findings are based on a study of paleoclimate data that record changes in average global temperatures over the last 66 million years. The MIT team applied a mathematical analysis to see whether the data revealed any patterns characteristic of stabilizing phenomena that reined in global temperatures on a geologic timescale.

They found that indeed there appears to be a consistent pattern in which the Earth’s temperature swings are dampened over timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. The duration of this effect is similar to the timescales over which silicate weathering is predicted to act.

The results are the first to use actual data to confirm the existence of a stabilizing feedback, the mechanism of which is likely silicate weathering. This stabilizing feedback would explain how the Earth has remained habitable through dramatic climate events in the geologic past.

Stability in data

Scientists have previously seen hints of a climate-stabilizing effect in the Earth’s carbon cycle: Chemical analyses of ancient rocks have shown that the flux of carbon in and out of Earth’s surface environment has remained relatively balanced, even through dramatic swings in global temperature. Furthermore, models of silicate weathering predict that the process should have some stabilizing effect on the global climate. And finally, the fact of the Earth’s enduring habitability points to some inherent, geologic check on extreme temperature swings.

“You have a planet whose climate was subjected to so many dramatic external changes. Why did life survive all this time? One argument is that we need some sort of stabilizing mechanism to keep temperatures suitable for life,” Arnscheidt says. “But it’s never been demonstrated from data that such a mechanism has consistently controlled Earth’s climate.”

Arnscheidt and Rothman sought to confirm whether a stabilizing feedback has indeed been at work, by looking at data of global temperature fluctuations through geologic history. They worked with a range of global temperature records compiled by other scientists, from the chemical composition of ancient marine fossils and shells, as well as preserved Antarctic ice cores.

“This whole study is only possible because there have been great advances in improving the resolution of these deep-sea temperature records,” Arnscheidt notes. “Now we have data going back 66 million years, with data points at most thousands of years apart.”

Speeding to a stop

To the data, the team applied the mathematical theory of stochastic differential equations, which is commonly used to reveal patterns in widely fluctuating datasets.

“We realized this theory makes predictions for what you would expect Earth’s temperature history to look like if there had been feedbacks acting on certain timescales,” Arnscheidt explains.

Without stabilizing feedbacks, fluctuations of global temperature should grow with timescale. But the team’s analysis revealed a regime in which fluctuations did not grow, implying that a stabilizing mechanism reigned in the climate before fluctuations grew too extreme. The timescale for this stabilizing effect—hundreds of thousands of years—coincides with what scientists predict for silicate weathering.

Interestingly, Arnscheidt and Rothman found that on longer timescales, the data did not reveal any stabilizing feedbacks. That is, there doesn’t appear to be any recurring pull-back of global temperatures on timescales longer than a million years. Over these longer timescales, then, what has kept global temperatures in check?

“There’s an idea that chance may have played a major role in determining why, after more than 3 billion years, life still exists,” Rothman offers.

In other words, as the Earth’s temperatures fluctuate over longer stretches, these fluctuations may just happen to be small enough in the geologic sense, to be within a range that a stabilizing feedback, such as silicate weathering, could periodically keep the climate in check, and more to the point, within a habitable zone.

“There are two camps: Some say random chance is a good enough explanation, and others say there must be a stabilizing feedback,” Arnscheidt says. “We’re able to show, directly from data, that the answer is probably somewhere in between. In other words, there was some stabilization, but pure luck likely also played a role in keeping Earth continuously habitable.”

Full article at Phys.org.

Effective climate-stabilizing feedback mechanisms to keep Earth’s temperature within a habitable zone over the 3.7-3.8 billion year timescale that life has been present on Earth are rather strongly consistent with intelligent design. I’ve never been impressed with “chance” as a scientific explanation for anything.

Comments
Relatd at 29, Thanks for sharing that chart. As you can see, nothing identifiable in the trunk, all the way back to the Time of The Sloth Giants. What. A. Joke. Andrewasauber
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Andrew at 28, Come on Andrew. Your great, great, etc. grandfather was a sea urchin. Right? https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tree-liferelatd
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
"complained that life’s origin was irrelevant" Thus was begat the countless and unidentifiable "Precursors" which go back indefinitely into the cloudy mists of time to hide this embarrassing dodge. Andrewasauber
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
The fact that Darwin avoided the origin of life in ‘Origin of Species’ is irrelevant to his belief in Abiogenesis. Darwin had held a belief in life from non-life for over forty years and had read Erasmus, his grandfather’s, notes. In 1825, when 16, Darwin enrolled at Edinburgh University along with his brother, Erasmus. There he became a disciple of Robert Grant who had cited Erasmus Darwin's widely popular ‘Zoonomia’ in his, Grant’s, doctoral thesis Grant imparted to Darwin that basic units of life, which Grant called ‘monads’, were spontaneously generated. Spontaneous generation not a novel notion to Darwin; he had been well prepared to receive the message and it’s there in his notebooks. In letters, Darwin acknowledged to colleagues that spontaneous generation through chemistry (he named the actual chemicals) and ‘electricity’ was important to evolutionary theory, but at the current level of knowledge he would not live to see it established. If Darwin had lived three times as long as he did, he would still have not seen it. It may be fairly said that the origin of life is as much an awkwardness to evolutionary theory as the origin of the universe is to cosmological theory but Darwin when taxed about it evaded and indignantly complained that life’s origin was irrelevant; “This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing laws of attraction of gravity & consequent movements of the Planets, because he could not show what the attraction of Gravity is.” After this irate flare-up, evolutionary theorists followed his stance and claim that how first life began is interesting, but immaterial to evolution after life began. A case of denying the self-evident.Belfast
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Chuck @18
My gut tells me that the OOL problem will someday be solved,
will be not. I as an engineer, I know what i see ... I am 100% sure it will be not. I would stake my life on it. Anytime. Or, do you want to bet ? $10,000 ? $20,000 ? I would bet $1,000,000 but I need it at the moment ;-) PS: from what I could understand, I really doubt that a synthetic cell / life in lab will be made from scratch within next 500 years ... most likely never .... I talked to Dr. Tour a few week ago regarding this. I am sure you heard of him. I put him a question: What was the most complex molecular system made by humans except his nano 'cars'. I was told, that these nano-'cars' is the most complex molecular system so far. I was shocked, because these nano-cars are very very primitive molecular system, made of few molecules ... very very very hard to compare even with the most simplest parts of a cell. Not sure you heard of these nano-cars. Here is an animation of the nanocar so you have an idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11P2MBLA5qcmartin_r
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
No issue with creating light or vegetation prior to creating the sun. If there was other light prior to the sun maybe you don't need the sun immediately for anything. Andrew P.S. you may ask about heat, but heat isn't addressed at all, so...asauber
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
SG at 21, God can do what He likes including creating things out of 'natural' order. He's God. Or does the concept of God you understand require Him to follow man-made rules as opposed to His? Psalm 14:1 'The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.'relatd
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @21
Sir Giles: ... If my memory serves me correct, god created light before the sun. And vegetation before the sun. Not exactly a compelling “proof”.
if it suits you, you take Bible literally.martin_r
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Sir Giles ... alright. can we get back to the indoctrination issue ? You previously said:
you are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that the universe and everything in it, including life, was designed/created,
So, in respect to our debate above, what is wrong with this indoctrination ? I don't get it ...martin_r
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Relatd: Prove? You want prove? I would suggest reading the Book of Genesis in the Bible.
I have. If my memory serves me correct, god created light before the sun. And vegetation before the sun. Not exactly a compelling “proof”.Sir Giles
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
SG at 19, Prove? You want prove? I would suggest reading the Book of Genesis in the Bible. If not, I suggest keeping your options open. If that doesn't work then I suggest prayer.relatd
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Martin_r: I just replied to Sir Giles, that YOU Darwinists, after 160 years of research, haven’t disproved the creation ?
They also haven’t disproved Santa Clause, leprechauns and unicorns. It is difficult to disprove something that you aren’t researching. And evolutionary biologists don’t research origin of life. That is a completely different field of study.
I just replied to Sir Giles, that YOU guys still haven’t proved that life can emerge by itself and NO CREATOR WAS INVOLVED ?
Please refer to my previous comment. But, conversely, nobody has proved that a creator was involved.Sir Giles
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Martin_r Your English is fine, I wasn't trying to correct you. I put emergence in quotes simply because that is the word you used. In context, it means the same as origin. Contra Relatd, the distinction between the origin of life problem and Darwinian (natural) selection is extremely important, at least to the scientific community. My gut tells me that the OOL problem will someday be solved, but it will be quite aways down the road. In the meantime, I find the whole "God did it" narrative completely unhelpful. I would prefer to not have an answer versus having one that's concocted and shallow, and, equally unprovable.chuckdarwin
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @12 First off, thank you for correcting my English (again). You are very kind, it really means a lot to me. Really. back to your comment:
Darwin did not address the origin or “emergence” of life.
You should read more carefully (or perhaps it is because of my bad English), but, i was mentioning the origin-of-life for a particular reason... Sir Giles argued, that we (Creationists) were indoctrinated, that everything was created and so on... I just replied to Sir Giles, that YOU Darwinists, after 160 years of research, haven't disproved the creation :) I just replied to Sir Giles, that YOU guys still haven't proved that life can emerge by itself and NO CREATOR WAS INVOLVED :) This was that "small detail" ... I didn't talk about evolution at all ... So, our indoctrination still holds water :)martin_r
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
CD at 15, If I had nickel for every time Darwinists insisted on an arbitrary dividing line between the origin of life and so-called evolution, I'd be rich. Who died and put any of you in charge? How is the origin of life a separate subject? ACCORDING TO WHO? Some idiot? Some Total Stranger (TM)? First, you need an origin of life. You NEED it. Got that? Without it, nothing follows. But evolutionists have nothing. They think they can hand wave the origin of life into a separate category. That is stupid. Really stupid. Darwin's secular 'holy' book has been thoroughly discredited. It belongs in the dust bin.relatd
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Follow on comment from @12 I continue to be perplexed that a significant number of commenters on this site do not understand the basic idea found in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life given that it is explicit in the title. If I had a nickel for every time someone conflated Darwin and the origin of life, I wouldn't need my Social Security check every month. I'm willing to wager that most of the folks dissing Darwin and evolution on this site have never read the Origin...........chuckdarwin
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
There was a recent article by an expert in epigenetics who distinguished it from genetics. https://www.the-scientist.com/sponsored-article/one-sequence-many-variations-70588 However, both disciplines are interested in the same things. So just consider modern genetics as just a super set including epigenetics. Both end up producing the same species but which may look different in some ways. Since Darwin’s finches are a just a product of both the old version of genetics and epigenetics and are the same species, they are truly great mascots for ID.     Let’s Go Finches jerry
November 18, 2022
November
11
Nov
18
18
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Darwin did not address the origin or “emergence” of life. He addressed how natural selection acts upon already existing life forms to produce fitness.
Yes, he only addressed genetics. Genetics wasn’t an organized science in Darwin’s day. But his ideas of variation, inheritability and selection became essentials in genetics. Somewhere along the line he took his ideas further than justified. His beloved finches were great examples of genetics but never Evolution.     Let’s Go Finches jerry
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Martin_r/7
[Y]ou Darwinists, the smartest people on this planet, still did not prove that life can emerge without a creator :)))))) Such a small detail. (of course, you never NEVER will)
Darwin did not address the origin or "emergence" of life. He addressed how natural selection acts upon already existing life forms to produce fitness. As you say, "such a small detail.........."chuckdarwin
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Relatd: It’s science.
I agree that it could be. But ID has done nothing to demonstrate this.Sir Giles
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
SG at 6, It's science. https://intelligentdesign.org/relatd
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.
:))))) No problem for a naive Darwinian biologist ... but a pretty huge problem for an engineer.martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
“I’ve never been impressed with “chance” as a scientific explanation for anything.” Yes, perpetually appealing to an innumerable series of perfectly arranged accidents is boring.
Beautiful ...martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Sir Giles to hear complains about an indoctrination/ ideology from a Darwinist is pretty absurd. Let me remind you on a tiny detail - you Darwinists, the smartest people on this planet, still did not prove that life can emerge without a creator :)))))) Such a small detail. (of course, you never NEVER will) So, so far, our indoctrination still makes sense and does hold water ... unlike your indoctrination :)))))))) PS:
But, in truth, anything can be interpreted as being consistent with design.
sure, because everything you look at was designed :)))))martin_r
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Relatd: Ideological? There’s too much evidence for design. It’s science.
Yes, ideological. If you are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that the universe and everything in it, including life, was designed/created, you are likely to interpret everything you see as evidence of design/creation.Sir Giles
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
SG at 4, Ideological? There's too much evidence for design. It's science.relatd
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Relatd: That’s not how to present design.
I am not making a recommendation on how best to present ID. I am just stating that for those with an ideologically based belief in design, everything they observe will be interpreted as design.Sir Giles
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
SG at 2, That's not how to present design. There is biological design, as in all living things are designed. Then there is the evidence for design in the Earth, the solar system and the Universe. The goal of some here is to say order came out of chaos. Not so, especially as more and more evidence accumulates. One does not create a large number of mistakes on the way to putting them in order. Instead, order existed from the beginning of Creation.relatd
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Effective climate-stabilizing feedback mechanisms to keep Earth’s temperature within a habitable zone over the 3.7-3.8 billion year timescale that life has been present on Earth are rather strongly consistent with intelligent design.
But, in truth, anything can be interpreted as being consistent with design.Sir Giles
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
"I’ve never been impressed with “chance” as a scientific explanation for anything." Yes, perpetually appealing to an innumerable series of perfectly arranged accidents is boring. Andrewasauber
November 17, 2022
November
11
Nov
17
17
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply