<p>At present, only 51% of energy is reaching the earth surface (including oceans) in any given normal year with cloud cover as normal (excluding a peak sunspot cycle year which would have significantly reduced cloud cover across the earth). All of that energy makes its way out eventually as per a heat budget balance and so with reduced CO2 emissions of 410 ppms cut in half or greater to account for human contribution, one could address your question adequately from the GHG Effect with a simple > NO ISSUE for increased use of energy as the heat by-product would be 'lesser' or less potent as per the thermodynamic laws. Your question was: (Could our energy consumption increase indefinitely without affecting the ability of Earth to support our current ecosystem; or will be ultimately have to limit our energy use?) To answer the question succinctly, NO, I do not equate greater effects to ecosystems or affecting our ecosystems as a result of rising energy solar demand with a subsequent reduction of GHG by from human sources. Also to add to the answer, if CO2 emissions greatly and there was less fallout of CO2 in rainfall into our oceans, the ability for plankton to greatly increase would improve tremendously and therefore add to the balance effect of respiring greater amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere providing a better situation for animals species on land and in the water. For me, carbon reduction in the atmosphere and in the water would allow for greater photosynthesis and therefore, greater cooling in both systems, but especially in aquatic system in the Epipelagic zone where light would interact with microscopic plankton that generate huge amounts of 'cooling' oxygen for the earth systems. Here is a supportive article: <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071117121016.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071117121016.htm</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-27T17:20:16.783Z
Thank you EBV, I like your reply. Would plankton multiply out of control with reduced carbon in the atmosphere but reduced water temperature? I am alluding to that scenario, but not explicit enough I suppose.
J. Kaciulis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-26T16:50:17.917Z
2019-12-27T16:17:13.693Z
2019-12-27T16:17:13.693Z
J. Kaciulis
<p>Heat does not accumulate on Earth. The Earth reaches an equilibrium temperature where  outgoing thermal radiation balances incoming solar radiation, plus some smaller sources, of which our current energy production is a small part.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts ... 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.
  Human production of energy is even lower, at an estimated 18 TW.   <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth&#39;s_internal_heat_and_other_small_effects" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wiki</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Skeptical Science says: <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Greenhouse warming 100 times greater than waste heat</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-27T23:22:09.147Z
"Heat does not accumulate on Earth" needs clarification; raising GHG levels causes heat accumulation until new equilibrium is reached. Good point with waste heat.
Ken Fabian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-26T04:39:35.717Z
2019-12-26T04:39:35.717Z
Keith McClary
<p>The great hope for a carbon neutral future is, as you suggest, fusion power stations. Scientists are making good progress in this direction, but a commercial reactor is still two or three decades away. We won't have to limit the number of reactors because their production of dangerous wastes is negligible compared to fission reactors. The heat they will produce is not a problem either, as it will be dwarfed by the heat from natural sources like the sun and geothermal. Much of the small contribution our reactors make will radiate away into space.</p>

<p>We will have to limit our energy use for the simple reason that we will have to limit our population. The Earth does not have unlimited resources and populations cannot continue growing indefinitely. If we don't limit them ourselves in a planned and orderly way, nature will do it for us, and in the scramble for increasingly scarce resources, wars will become more likely. Water scarcity is already threatening to bring war to the Middle East and Africa. Whether the oceans will heat significantly before the carbon neutral energy sources can fully take up the task of providing our energy requirements, we shall have to wait and see.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-24T10:37:53.500Z
Yes, estimates have always been over optimistic, but what has changed is the progress made. Fusion has been achieved for about a second, and consumed as much energy as it produced, but it is a good first step. Scientists are working on an experimental reactor which they hope will be capable of a self sustaining fusion reaction, and will lead on to the development of a pioneer commercial reactor. We have never been at this stage before. It is hoped that by lining the torus with lithium tiles, the loss of neutrons can be reduced and more tritium manufactured to aid the fusion reaction.
Michael Walsby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-24T09:15:00.833Z
2019-12-24T09:15:00.833Z
Michael Walsby
<p>We’ve completely obliterated our reliance on carbon based fuels. All our energy comes from renewal resources or even fusion. Our energy requirements continue to rise. Taking this to a deliberately ludicrous degree, whereby we’re capturing the sun’s energy, planet wide, via solar panels, we would essentially be diverting large amounts of sunlight that might otherwise have reflected our radiated back into space into our energy networks. Whatever that energy is used for our will ultimately be transformed Into heat. Some of that heat will be emitted into space via radiation, but I can’t help wondering if much of it will just stick around and continue to heat our atmosphere and oceans. Could our energy consumption increase indefinitely without affecting the ability of Earth to support our current ecosystem; or will be ultimately have to limit our energy use?</p>

<p>Edit for disambiguation purposes:
I'm not sure my original question at posed has been understood. Ignoring existing greenhouse gas emissions, in fact ignoring any issue with GHG at all, as civilization advances and our energy requirements continue to rise, the energy that we do use to perform work will ultimately be transformed into heat. We'd basically be pumping heat into the atmosphere instead of GHGs. A hotter atmosphere still holds more energy and moisture. Could we end up overproducing heat via fusion? Or is radiation an effective way for the planet to balance this excess?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-24T07:30:41.467Z
You should consider that 70% of Earth surface is covered by water, so unless you place solar panels in the oceans, they will receive the same radiation.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-24T07:49:21.427Z
Fusion then. If we were to detonate a million fusion bombs around the globe things would undoubtedly get quite heated, but if we were releasing large quantities of heat as a result of clean fusion generation could we really rely on that heat escaping into space? It could only go via radiation. I figure there’d be plenty of construction and convection left over.
ThisLeeNoble
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-24T07:53:28.837Z
It is not that simple... If you place many fusion reactors, then you will need many heat exchangers to absorv the energy and reintroduce water in the system (or whatever element you use). This heat energy will go to water reservoirs and the atmosphere. So if you increase the atmosphere temperature, you will increase the water evaporation on the oceans. This water evaporation will reduce the temperature (if they are cummulus) or increase (if they are stratus). So one of them will keep the temperature of our planet and some others will trigger a huge greenhouse effect, as Venus.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-24T07:54:16.830Z
Our actual knowledge regarding cloud systems and formation is very limited to know what will happen in that scenario.
David García Bodego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-19T07:37:54.147Z
This is the exact same question posed by [Aeon magazine](https://aeon.co/essays/theres-a-deeper-problem-hiding-beneath-global-warming).
Toby Mak
<atmosphere><climate-change>
In a zero carbon future but with increasing energy requirements would Earths oceans continue heating?
ThisLeeNoble
# In a zero carbon future but with increasing energy requirements would Earths oceans continue heating?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-23)

We’ve completely obliterated our reliance on carbon based fuels. All our energy comes from renewal resources or even fusion. Our energy requirements continue to rise. Taking this to a deliberately ludicrous degree, whereby we’re capturing the sun’s energy, planet wide, via solar panels, we would essentially be diverting large amounts of sunlight that might otherwise have reflected our radiated back into space into our energy networks. Whatever that energy is used for our will ultimately be transformed Into heat. Some of that heat will be emitted into space via radiation, but I can’t help wondering if much of it will just stick around and continue to heat our atmosphere and oceans. Could our energy consumption increase indefinitely without affecting the ability of Earth to support our current ecosystem; or will be ultimately have to limit our energy use?

Edit for disambiguation purposes:
I'm not sure my original question at posed has been understood. Ignoring existing greenhouse gas emissions, in fact ignoring any issue with GHG at all, as civilization advances and our energy requirements continue to rise, the energy that we do use to perform work will ultimately be transformed into heat. We'd basically be pumping heat into the atmosphere instead of GHGs. A hotter atmosphere still holds more energy and moisture. Could we end up overproducing heat via fusion? Or is radiation an effective way for the planet to balance this excess?

**Tags:** atmosphere, climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You should consider that 70% of Earth surface is covered by water, so unless you place solar panels in the oceans, they will receive the same radiation.  
> **username_0**: Fusion then. If we were to detonate a million fusion bombs around the globe things would undoubtedly get quite heated, but if we were releasing large quantities of heat as a result of clean fusion generation could we really rely on that heat escaping into space? It could only go via radiation. I figure there’d be plenty of construction and convection left over.  
> **username_1**: It is not that simple... If you place many fusion reactors, then you will need many heat exchangers to absorv the energy and reintroduce water in the system (or whatever element you use). This heat energy will go to water reservoirs and the atmosphere. So if you increase the atmosphere temperature, you will increase the water evaporation on the oceans. This water evaporation will reduce the temperature (if they are cummulus) or increase (if they are stratus). So one of them will keep the temperature of our planet and some others will trigger a huge greenhouse effect, as Venus.  
> **username_1**: Our actual knowledge regarding cloud systems and formation is very limited to know what will happen in that scenario.  
> **username_2**: This is the exact same question posed by [Aeon magazine](https://aeon.co/essays/theres-a-deeper-problem-hiding-beneath-global-warming).  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-12-26. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

At present, only 51% of energy is reaching the earth surface (including oceans) in any given normal year with cloud cover as normal (excluding a peak sunspot cycle year which would have significantly reduced cloud cover across the earth). All of that energy makes its way out eventually as per a heat budget balance and so with reduced CO2 emissions of 410 ppms cut in half or greater to account for human contribution, one could address your question adequately from the GHG Effect with a simple > NO ISSUE for increased use of energy as the heat by-product would be 'lesser' or less potent as per the thermodynamic laws. Your question was: (Could our energy consumption increase indefinitely without affecting the ability of Earth to support our current ecosystem; or will be ultimately have to limit our energy use?) To answer the question succinctly, NO, I do not equate greater effects to ecosystems or affecting our ecosystems as a result of rising energy solar demand with a subsequent reduction of GHG by from human sources. Also to add to the answer, if CO2 emissions greatly and there was less fallout of CO2 in rainfall into our oceans, the ability for plankton to greatly increase would improve tremendously and therefore add to the balance effect of respiring greater amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere providing a better situation for animals species on land and in the water. For me, carbon reduction in the atmosphere and in the water would allow for greater photosynthesis and therefore, greater cooling in both systems, but especially in aquatic system in the Epipelagic zone where light would interact with microscopic plankton that generate huge amounts of 'cooling' oxygen for the earth systems. Here is a supportive article: <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071117121016.htm>

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Thank you EBV, I like your reply. Would plankton multiply out of control with reduced carbon in the atmosphere but reduced water temperature? I am alluding to that scenario, but not explicit enough I suppose.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-12-26. Score: 1

Heat does not accumulate on Earth. The Earth reaches an equilibrium temperature where outgoing thermal radiation balances incoming solar radiation, plus some smaller sources, of which our current energy production is a small part.

> The geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts ... 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.
> Human production of energy is even lower, at an estimated 18 TW. [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_internal_heat_and_other_small_effects)

Skeptical Science says: [Greenhouse warming 100 times greater than waste heat](https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm)

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: "Heat does not accumulate on Earth" needs clarification; raising GHG levels causes heat accumulation until new equilibrium is reached. Good point with waste heat.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-12-24. Score: -1

The great hope for a carbon neutral future is, as you suggest, fusion power stations. Scientists are making good progress in this direction, but a commercial reactor is still two or three decades away. We won't have to limit the number of reactors because their production of dangerous wastes is negligible compared to fission reactors. The heat they will produce is not a problem either, as it will be dwarfed by the heat from natural sources like the sun and geothermal. Much of the small contribution our reactors make will radiate away into space.

We will have to limit our energy use for the simple reason that we will have to limit our population. The Earth does not have unlimited resources and populations cannot continue growing indefinitely. If we don't limit them ourselves in a planned and orderly way, nature will do it for us, and in the scramble for increasingly scarce resources, wars will become more likely. Water scarcity is already threatening to bring war to the Middle East and Africa. Whether the oceans will heat significantly before the carbon neutral energy sources can fully take up the task of providing our energy requirements, we shall have to wait and see.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Yes, estimates have always been over optimistic, but what has changed is the progress made. Fusion has been achieved for about a second, and consumed as much energy as it produced, but it is a good first step. Scientists are working on an experimental reactor which they hope will be capable of a self sustaining fusion reaction, and will lead on to the development of a pioneer commercial reactor. We have never been at this stage before. It is hoped that by lining the torus with lithium tiles, the loss of neutrons can be reduced and more tritium manufactured to aid the fusion reaction.  

---

