Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[Urederra]

The CO2 levels are nothing compared to the Cambrian era.


From http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm#climate

A major transgression in the Middle Ordovician created widespread shallow, warm epicontinental seas. Thus, most of the Ordovician was favorable for marine life, particularly around the well-studied European and North American cratons. However, the Ordovician ended in a brief (300-500 ky), but severe, ice age. Gondwana, particularly Africa, straddled the South Pole and became extensively glaciated. There were even glaciers in what is now the Sahara. Metazoans were severely effected. About 60% of animal genera became extinct, making this the second or third most deadly mass extinction of the Phanerozoic [1]. As a natural consequence, a good deal of attention has been focused on the causes of the Ordovician Ice Age. In fact, it is not easy to see how an ice age could have occurred. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been 8 to 20 times their current values. This ought to have prevented anything approaching an ice age. Sea levels were high through most of the Ordovician. They dropped, dramatically (about 50 m), in connection with the ice age, but it is hard to tell whether this was cause, effect, or both.

... 8 to 20 times their current values...

Who took the blame for that?

 

[tR1cKy]

That's quite interesting. Now:
1) what caused this dramatic increase in the CO2 level?
2) what caused the big ice age despite an insane amount of CO2 in the athmosphere?
I'm quite puzzled about this. As a layman, i just ask a question. Could a massive asteroid impact be the culprit? The CO2 would be caused by a large part of the forests burning, the successive ice age would be due to the atmosphere being opacized by the insane amount of smoke. For what i know, such a thing could be right as well as completely wrong. Is it plausible?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Mercy Mercy Me
Marvin Gaye

Oh, mercy mercy me
Oh, things ain't what they used to be
No, no
Where did all the blue sky go?
Poison is the wind that blows
From the north, east, south, and sea
Oh, mercy mercy me
Oh, things ain't what they used to be
No, no
Oil wasted on the oceans and upon our seas
Fish full of mercury
Oh, mercy mercy me
Oh, things ain't what they used to be
No, no
Radiation underground and in the sky
Animals and birds who live nearby are dying
Oh, mercy mercy me
Oh, things ain't what they used to be
What about this overcrowded land?
How much more abuse from man can you stand?
My sweet Lord
My sweet Lord
My sweet Lord

 

[Gothmog]

Urederra wrote:

I have only said that the NO2 and SO2/SO3 also absorbs IR energy.

but not enough to be significant at their current mixing ratios. Also their overlap with the H2O spectra is more significant than CO2.

And I only have express my doubts about the CO2 contribution to the so-called global warming based on the fact that the 1950 1970 period was colder than normal, whereas CO2 levels were increasing since the beginning of the century.

I breached this topic in the other thread. Care to comment now? Or read the references I provide?

Now you bring up data from 470 million years ago. For which we have vanishingly small information about the state of the climate... to prove what?

The sun could have been less intense, there could have been a different atmospheric structure in which the stratosphere did not exist and so frozen cloud tops were higher, there could have been large amounts of volcanic activity, the different continental distribution could have effected circulation, biogeochemistry could have been much different, there could have been a large part of the globe covered with ice which reflected much of the incoming solar radiation away...

I could go on and on because we don't have much good data to deal with that climate.

Unlike today where we have huge quantities of high quality data. We know the current forcings to a very small margin, I have posted them a number of times. The open question is what effect these forcings will have, i.e. how the climate system will respond on various time scales.

 

[Urederra]

Also their overlap with the H2O spectra is more significant than CO2.

Actually, it isn't. H2O absorbs at 3600 cm-1 (OH stretching), C=O stretch absorbs at around 1800 - 1600 cm-1. N=O stretch absorbs at 1600 - 1500 cm-1 and S=O stretch, being S much bigger than C or N, absorbs a lower wavenumers. But I don't know why do you thing the overlap should be important.

Now you bring up data from 470 million years ago. For which we have vanishingly small information about the state of the climate... to prove what?

470 million years is not much in geology. It is another prove that CO2 levels and earth global temperature does not match. Not 470 million years ago, not in the 12th century, when the medieval optimum, not in the little ice age, not in the 1950 1970 period.... never.

The sun could have been less intense, ...snip...

DITTO. So, the sun have periods and frecuencies that have an impact in global temperatures. It is not only the spots, it is the whole sun variability.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385 Ref:Marx Planck Institute:

...snip... The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field. ...snip...

"Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s" Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 211101 (2003)
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00091000021211101000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

 

[killercane]

Fascinating thread; Ive just read it all. Tricky, youve done a pretty darn good job of moderating it (though I did have to go through almost 2 pages of namecalling by certain people).

My 1st question is: is the onus to prove their point on the GW proponents or non GW proponents?

As a layman, I accept the Earth and her historical cyclical temperature shifts as fact. I dont think either side has argued against this. This would seem to corroborate the non GW point of view. 2nd Q: GW proponents, is it fair to say that?

The single data set of a closely measured average temperature rise in the last 100 years doesnt do much in comparison to billions of years of climatic instability. Applying the scientific method, I cant see the GW theory as a scientific fact as yet. It simply needs more data. 3rd Q: Do we have the time to collect this data before it is "too late?" 4th Q: What is "too late?" Total collapse of humanity or death of all life on earth?

I would have to say Gothmog has the most impressive credentials in the thread, but I did notice the words "Uncertainties," "trends," and "Inferences" mentioned in several cited articles. That seems to further the idea that the scientists are working with incomplete data sets and extrapolating their theories from that data. Comments?

 

[Urederra]

Check this out:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3099186#post3099186


It is sooooooooo sweeeeeetttttt

 

[Pikachu]

The single data set of a closely measured average temperature rise in the last 100 years doesnt do much in comparison to billions of years of climatic instability. Applying the scientific method, I cant see the GW theory as a scientific fact as yet.

Forget the temperature measurements! The greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere becomes less transparent for infrared radiation. That is something we can measure, and of course someone has measured it. The measurements clearly tell that the atmosphere is becoming significantly more opaque to infrared radiation, i.e. the greenhouse effect is increasing according to the measurements. What more do we need?

 

[carlosMM]

470 million years is not much in geology.

erhm, sorry to bust your bubble, but it is almost the full time that complex life exists on thsi planet.

It is another prove that CO2 levels and earth global temperature does not match. Not 470 million years ago, not in the 12th century, when the medieval optimum, not in the little ice age, not in the 1950 1970 period.... never.

for the umpteens time: temperatures are not a monocausal thing. CO2 is NOT THE ONLY THING steeering temperatures. AS has been said about a million times.

So, you basically prove what everyone already knows and what was never debated. Not here, not in sicence.

So now please prove how the climate is controlled by sun activity. Come on, must be easy, you just need to bring a paper that details how the energy amount reaching earth has fluctuated to fit the tmeps....

 

[carlosMM]

As a layman, I accept the Earth and her historical cyclical temperature shifts as fact. I dont think either side has argued against this. This would seem to corroborate the non GW point of view. 2nd Q: GW proponents, is it fair to say that?

it is dead wrong - think: let's assume you drive a car at a constant speed on a road with varying asphalt mixes. Depending on the type of road surface you are on you'll need more or less gas for a given speed. So you milage varies. Now you decide to drive a bit faster - does the fact that mileage varies at constant speed mean that the higher fuel use at a higher speed is ALSO caused by the road top differences? Or is it your fault?

Sure climate varies due to a multitude of factors. If man changes one or more of these factors massively, then man is to blame for the resulting change in climate.

 

[Mountain-God]

it is dead wrong - think: let's assume you drive a car at a constant speed on a road with varying asphalt mixes. Depending on the type of road surface you are on you'll need more or less gas for a given speed. So you milage varies. Now you decide to drive a bit faster - does the fact that mileage varies at constant speed mean that the higher fuel use at a higher speed is ALSO caused by the road top differences? Or is it your fault?

Sure climate varies due to a multitude of factors. If man changes one or more of these factors massively, then man is to blame for the resulting change in climate.

I think this fairly illustrates the point, and reality.

 

[killercane]

it is dead wrong

You are saying Earth's historical cyclical shifts are not fact? We havent even taken that step in the argument with the text you quoted. The only thing we are agreeing on is: Earth has ice ages and warm ages and there are variations between the two representing a cyclical pattern. Do you agree that this is scientific fact or do you think something like the dinosaur asteroid skewed things and Earth's temp is relatively constant? There are so many variables in this environment of our study that we can only look at the entire aspect of the Earth as an environment, right?

Of course I see your point with the driving example. But man hasnt entered the conversation yet. We're at step one. We have to start off with facts we can agree on, and apply those to see who has the uphill battle to fight. Do you believe it is fair to non GW proponents to assume global warming as scientific fact with only 100 years of accurate data? Probably not I would hope. Where should we start in applying the scientific method? What can most people agree on as fact?

No one's arguing about a car or whatever hurting the environment; the Q is is the change "massive" or due to other constraints? I know you arent saying the sky is falling, and you make good arguments, but where do you see us in 250 years? 3 degrees hotter and off fossil fuels or not? These are the later questions that arise in assessing the situation.

 

[Urederra]

Oh... I am so happy about the ice caps melting in Mars.

Sure climate varies due to a multitude of factors... snip ...

... That makes me even happier... ... so, you are admitting that there are other factors appart from CO2? that´s even sweeter. which ones? And what is the importance (in percentage) of human produced CO2 levels in climate? And which are the error bars for those percentages?

Once you have admitted that CO2 does not make the 100 % of the climate change, how can you be sure that it is 70 % or 60 %, or even 30 %?

And, the main point under my point of view. How can global politics can be dictated based on specullations, highly inaccurated measures non-related cause-effect links and manipulated graphs made by mischievous scientists?

I say, no thank you, don´t dictate me what I have to do if you are not sure about how earth´s climate works.


Arthur Guiterman "Admitting Error clears the Score."


Now you can start saying yadda yadda yadda and tsk tsk tsk again...

 

[Urederra]

. Do you believe it is fair to non GW proponents to assume global warming as scientific fact with only 100 years of accurate data? .

Specially when they proposed an Ice Age not so long ago....

 

[carlosMM]

You are saying Earth's historical cyclical shifts are not fact?

nope, read my post again and see what I address:
the assumption that 'because there were cliamte changes before man, man isn't responsible for the present one' is dead wrong.

We havent even taken that step in the argument with the text you quoted. The only thing we are agreeing on is: Earth has ice ages and warm ages and there are variations between the two representing a cyclical pattern. Do you agree that this is scientific fact or do you think something like the dinosaur asteroid skewed things and Earth's temp is relatively constant? There are so many variables in this environment of our study that we can only look at the entire aspect of the Earth as an environment, right?

yadda yadda - you are quite reight there's many factors - and all historic climate changes we have some proper data on can be explained easily. Just that - if you discount human activity - the recent one CAN'T.

Of course I see your point with the driving example. But man hasnt entered the conversation yet. We're at step one. We have to start off with facts we can agree on, and apply those to see who has the uphill battle to fight.

That's not how your post sounded.... but OK, let's start here....

Do you believe it is fair to non GW proponents to assume global warming as scientific fact with only 100 years of accurate data?

Wrong, there's WAY older data. Only for accurate DIRECT temperature measurement and EXACT DIRECT CO2 measurement are we limited to roughly 100 years. But there's plenty of proxies, e.g. ice cores.

Probably not I would hope. Where should we start in applying the scientific method? What can most people agree on as fact?

Please, can you get a bit more patronising? Then I have at least a reason to blow up!

'applying the scientific method' - what do you THINK all the many people who try to make sense of the paleoclimate do? Dream it all up?

No, they take isotope measures from ice and sediment (and the fossils in it), chemical properties measurements, meteorological models of wind directions etc. to come up with a model of how climate was and was and is changing. There is no need for everyone on thes treet to agree. It doesn't matter what 'most people' are willing to agree on, but what the scientific community finds as the most robust theory. And that is obvious if you check the thread: despite hard tries by the GW-deniers, nobody has brought forth anything that casts even reasonable doubt at man-made GW except for false or horribly outdated stuff.

If in THIS THREAD you want to apply these methods it will detoriate into a posting of about 1,000 PDFs a day, just to get the raw data.

No one's arguing about a car or whatever hurting the environment; the Q is is the change "massive" or due to other constraints? I know you arent saying the sky is falling, and you make good arguments, but where do you see us in 250 years? 3 degrees hotter and off fossil fuels or not? These are the later questions that arise in assessing the situation.

in 250 years? No idea, as there are too many hard-to-quantify feedback mechanisms out there. I would rule out a world-wide cooling, but Europe may well cool if the heat transport by the Gulf Stream goes down.

Off fossil fuels? I doubt it - it is too convenient to use coal and oil, as it is very easy to stick your head into the sand (see this thread for examples).

 

[Pikachu]

We have to start off with facts we can agree on, and apply those to see who has the uphill battle to fight.

Since you want to agree on things, I have a few questions for you:

1: Do you agree that humans have significantly changed the concentrations of some important greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere?

2: Do you agree that a significant change in greenhouse gas concentrations will changed the greenhouse effect?

3: Do you agree that a change in the greenhouse effect must alter the planet’s energy balance?

4: Do you agree that a change in Earth’s energy balance will have an effect on our climate?

Hopefully some skeptics will answer these questions so we can find out what exactly you are skeptic about.

 

[Gothmog]

Urederra

Actually, it isn't. H2O absorbs at 3600 cm-1 (OH stretching), C=O stretch absorbs at around 1800 - 1600 cm-1. N=O stretch absorbs at 1600 - 1500 cm-1 and S=O stretch, being S much bigger than C or N, absorbs a lower wavenumers. But I don't know why do you thing the overlap should be important.

I guess I asked for this but I didn't realize how little you understood about this topic.

Sometimes you seem well informed (e.g. you have access to IR spectra), others not so much (e.g. you don't know how to apply them in an atmospheric context).

Large parts of the atmosphere are opaque at various wavelengths. In the IR region this is primarily due to water and carbon dioxide because of their mixing ratios. H2O has very broad absorption features. To say it absorbs at 3600 is just wrong. It has one maximum between about 3200 and 4200, and another between about 2300 and 2900 (all values in wavenumbers, i.e. cm-1). Here are the spectra from NIST:

These spectra are taken at concentrations where minimum transmission is still on scale. When we are talking about saturated spectra the side bands will come up and the center bands will be flat unless displayed on a log scale.

So the reason why overlap is important...

If a given spectral band is already saturated, then adding additional absorbers in that region does not change the atmospheric insolation.

So for SO2 we see a major absorption at about 1400 cm-1, but this is in a region where H2O has already saturated the atmospheric transmission.

In contrast we see a major feature for CO2 at 2300 - 2400 cm-1, a region where H2O absorption is at a minimum. In this region it is CO2 that saturates atmospheric absorption.

This is why some species (such as N2O and some CFC's) can be important to global warming even though they exist at tiny mixing ratios. They absorb strongly in what are known as 'windows', that is regions where the atmosphere is not already saturated.

470 million years is not much in geology. It is another prove that CO2 levels and earth global temperature does not match. Not 470 million years ago, not in the 12th century, when the medieval optimum, not in the little ice age, not in the 1950 1970 period.... never.

I am not trying to prove that global temperature and CO2 levels match. Why would I? I've said as much to you in a number of posts, including ones you've subsequently linked to.

What I've been trying to show is that, all other things being equal, if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere you will increase the amount of solar energy retained by the earth system. Further, the amount of CO2 that we can specifically attribute to human activities has significantly increased the ability of the atmosphere to retain solar energy.

How this energy will be distributed by the earth system is more uncertain. It depends in part on what time scale you are interested in. The first order, short time scale, effect will almost certainly be an increase in tropospheric temperatures along with a decrease in stratospheric temperatures.

So, the sun have periods and frecuencies that have an impact in global temperatures. It is not only the spots, it is the whole sun variability.

Gah! I've said this over and over. I even posted a plot of the long term cycles (the milankovitch cycles) and one of the recent increase in solar activity (including the 11 year cycle that was specifically visible in my plot) being specifically taken into account in modern climate models and how small they are compared to other forcings.

Here it is again, I don't think you were involved in the conversation yet:

See the 11 year cycle in the orange line? See how the long term trend in the orange line is positive?

The research you mention is about magnetic activity (related to sun spots), and not energy output in the visible region.

Here's a quote from your link

The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time

@killercane - see my explanation above about what I've been trying to get across. Yes, the earth has historical temperature shifts. Yes there is uncertainty. But the salient point is that humans have increased the ability of the earth system to retain solar energy. This increase is significant, and retaining solar energy is the primary forcing for global temperatures (balance between visible in and IR out).

 

[Gothmog]

Another response to Urederra, I've linked here from the other thread in an attempt to keep threadjacking to a minimum.

Urederra, though you obviously never read anything I post I'll keep trying for a bit longer.

Here is a plot from a reference I have tried to get you to look at three times now, the recent (Feb 2005) work by A. Moberg as published in Nature:

You will note both the midieval warm period (which indeed was a local phenomena according to most reputable work in the area, no one denies it existed) and the little ice age. The little ice age is certainly more pronounced than in the Mann work but the midieval warm period is within 0.2 degrees and well within the error bars even at one sigma. The reasons for that are discussed in the paper if you are interested. Basically the new work emphasised inland temperature records and also used a very new wavelet analysis for temperature reconstruction that allows temperature records of different sampling and averaging frequencies to be combined more readily.

The green 'instrumental' part of the plot is the halley center temperature record that I have also reproduced here though you have chosen to ignore that too.

You will note the same 0.5 degree warming, and the same hockey stick pattern.

What is it you think you have proven by trying to discredit the Mann record? Indeed the main difference here is that there has been even more warming in the last few hundred years because temperatures were colder then according to this reconstruction.

That is your personal opinion. The fact is that Mars icecaps are shrinking and the sun has been very active lately.

Mars is not relevant, again we don't have data anywhere close to what we do for earth. The ice cap changes are basicaly anecdotal.

As for the sun being active lately, that is magnetically not in terms of radiative output. Even your reference says as much, constant output since the 80's. Exactly as is shown on the plot I give above that also shows the increase in secular output over longer time scales and the 11 year cycle (which is currently on its way down).

Why do you think climate scientists wouldn't use the best available data about solar output? They are the ones doing the measurements in most cases.

For there to be a link to magnetic activity it would have to involve cosmic rays, this is an area of research I am actively involved in actually. Problem is there is no known mechanism of action for this link, though we are searching for one. That's one of the basic tenants of science, there must be a mechanism of action.

That is why they are wrong, Is not that I ignore those articles, Is that they are proven wrong.

No, it is just that you refuse to read the articles and then make stuff up based on your own preconcieved conclusions. As you can see from the above, I did post references that show the temperature trends you are so enamored with for whatever reason.

I also agree that the sun is important and have posted many more references that show the true magnitude of the known connections.

 

[killercane]

No, they take isotope measures from ice and sediment (and the fossils in it), chemical properties measurements, meteorological models of wind directions etc. to come up with a model of how climate was and was and is changing. There is no need for everyone on thes treet to agree. It doesn't matter what 'most people' are willing to agree on, but what the scientific community finds as the most robust theory. And that is obvious if you check the thread: despite hard tries by the GW-deniers, nobody has brought forth anything that casts even reasonable doubt at man-made GW except for false or horribly outdated stuff.

Ok. Why doesnt the scientific community agree that GW is proven and factual? Is it not still a "robust theory?" Shouldnt the historical climactic fits cause reasonable doubt if you assume GW as factual first?

1: Do you agree that humans have significantly changed the concentrations of some important greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere?
Yes

2: Do you agree that a significant change in greenhouse gas concentrations will changed the greenhouse effect?
Yes

3: Do you agree that a change in the greenhouse effect must alter the planet’s energy balance?
Well maybe. I dont think there's enough factual data and "energy balance" is a vague term. Gothmog I think made the comment along the lines that "global warming" is an imprecise term with many definitions. Its easy to go off on tangents if we dont use specific terms. You mean the IR balance studies? I really dont think greenhouse gases will change the IR balance to a horrible and unlivable degree.

4: Do you agree that a change in Earth’s energy balance will have an effect on our climate?
Again maybe. My personal belief is that the Earth is on an upwards cycle and human caused greenhouse gases contribute to the increases somewhat. I just have a hard time believing they are the sole cause and that all life will be extinct in 1000 years if we dont convert immediately to non fossil fuel sources. My point is that GW proponents cannot apportion the deleterious human caused environmental effects effectively due to a lack of data.

In the next 250 years I see our world moving away from fossil fuels to renewable sources and I see a small temperature increase during that time. But I also think a cooling off period will occur in the next millenia and the Earth will correct any "energy imbalance" caused by 200 years or so of industrialization through natural processes. I dont have any ice core samples charts or oceanic salinity measures to say that for certain, no one does. I just have faith in nature as a regenerative process.

Gothmog@killercane - see my explanation above about what I've been trying to get across. Yes, the earth has historical temperature shifts. Yes there is uncertainty. But the salient point is that humans have increased the ability of the earth system to retain solar energy. This increase is significant, and retaining solar energy is the primary forcing for global temperatures (balance between visible in and IR out).

Agreed with all but the last sentence. I just feel that the inferences from a small set of data arent definitive to the point where we can say "hey, we need a radical and immediate change to what we are doing or our children will die." I think the scientific community is struggling to find the definitive data and are constantly adapting to what we discover. Thats what they should do. I just dont think we are at the point yet where we can say GW is a disastrous man made phenomena with reasonable certainty.

the assumption that 'because there were cliamte changes before man, man isn't responsible for the present one' is dead wrong.

You're jumping the gun. Reread my post. I did not make the jump to discussing man and responsibility.

 

[Pikachu]

Ok. Why doesnt the scientific community agree that GW is proven and factual?

The same reason why the scientific community doesn’t agree that evolution is proven and factual I suppose

1: Do you agree that humans have significantly changed the concentrations of some important greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere?
Yes

2: Do you agree that a significant change in greenhouse gas concentrations will changed the greenhouse effect?
Yes

3: Do you agree that a change in the greenhouse effect must alter the planet’s energy balance?
Well maybe.

Thank you for answering!

I dont think there's enough factual data and "energy balance" is a vague term. Gothmog I think made the comment along the lines that "global warming" is an imprecise term with many definitions. Its easy to go off on tangents if we dont use specific terms. You mean the IR balance studies? I really dont think greenhouse gases will change the IR balance to a horrible and unlivable degree.

Energy wise Earth is pretty much an isolated system that only exchanges energy by radiation. With energy balance I mean that the energy that enters Earth should equal the energy that escapes earth. If the balance between the two is disturbed, the earth system has to change until a new equilibrium is achieved. By radiation I mean the whole electromagnetic spectrum, not just infrared radiation. Anyway, your IR balance is not going to change to a horrible and unlivable degree, but for me survival is not the only success criterion. I have a lot more demanding ambitions

Oh yeah, and I agree that global warming is not a scientific term.

My personal belief is that the Earth is on an upwards cycle and human caused greenhouse gases contribute to the increases somewhat. I just have a hard time believing they are the sole cause and that all life will be extinct in 1000 years if we dont convert immediately to non fossil fuel sources.

Agreed! But be aware that reputable scientists never claim that humans are the sole cause of climate change. The most extreme views you will get there is that human activities are the most important cause. Greenpeace is of course a different matter entirely. Don’t trust those maniacs!

Nobody in their right mind would think that GHG emissions could possibly cause all life to go extinct. Converting immediately to non fossil fuels would not be enough to avoid significant anthropogenic climate changes either, by the way. Too much of that stuff is already there.

In the next 250 years I see our world moving away from fossil fuels to renewable sources and I see a small temperature increase during that time. But I also think a cooling off period will occur in the next millenia and the Earth will correct any "energy imbalance" caused by 200 years or so of industrialization through natural processes.

I agree if the small temperature increase you are talking about is in the range of a few degrees Celsius.

I just have faith in nature as a regenerative process.

I hope you are right!