Re: Creationists Don't Like Other Sciences, Either

Ernest Major <{$to$}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>In message <45b13034.8694484@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Luminoso 
><luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>On 19 Jan 2007 10:07:50 -0800, riplin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Luminoso wrote:
>>>
>>>>    With the ice coming
>>>>    out of the equation there would be a (relatively) rapid
>>>>    temperature increase until the new equilibrium point
>>>>    is reached.
>>>
>>>The then is: what is that point, and can we survive it ?
>>
>>   Sure.
>
>What about surviving, but with trillions of dollars of economic losses?

   Pulling the plug on carbon-based fuels would also result in
   trillions lost ... and a far more rapid ****ft towards Chinese
   industrial domination, since China won't stop using such fuels.

   So, we lose trillions compensating for GW effects, but get to
   keep our 1st-world lifestyles and all the nice things that come
   with it, or we lose trillions AND our lifestyle AND our niche
   in the global industrial economy and STILL get GW because east
   asian countries will still consume vast quantities of carbon-
   based fuels. 

   So, the lesser of evils is ... 

   See how it works ? Is it perfectly clear to you now ? 


>>   About 50-55 million years ago there was over FIVE TIMES
>>   as much CO2 in the atmosphere. Conditions were 'tropical'
>>   over the entire globe but not remotely out of the livable
>>   range.
>>
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_thermal_maximum
>>
>>   There are a couple of errors in the above article. Recent
>>   research shows that there was NOT a large methane release,
>>   CO2 alone caused most of the heating. Archaic methane has
>>   a noticibly different carbon isotope ratio than newly-made
>>   methane and this unique isotope signature was NOT found in
>>   ice or sediment samples from the period. Also, you cannot
>>   dissolve calcium-carbonate-based rocks and shells in an
>>   ocean acidified with CO2 because all you'll get is an
>>   instant reversion to carbonate. Pour HCL on table salt
>>   sometime and note the nil result, it's ALREADY a chloride.
>
>You analogy is imperfect, as it neglects the existence of bicarbonate.

   Some carbonate might be recreated as bicarbonate. However
   bicarbonate is unstable in acidic environments and will
   rapidly break down producing CO2 which will re-dissolve
   in the water to produce more carbonates and bicarbonates.
   Little net effect. 

>You might like to check the effects of increasing the CO2 concentration 
>on the equilibrium between bicarbonate and carbonate ions. (I don't know 
>the answers, but I've seen concern about the effects of increasing ocean 
>acidity on coral reefs from what appeared to be reputable sources.)

   The coral reefs are toast ... as are any organisms that
   have become so specialized as to require the environment
   coral reefs create. It is possible that some obscure
   acid-tolerant coral species will suddenly find that it
   has no competition and thus spread-out all over ... 

   Ever since the ice ages began, levels of CO2 and global
   temperatures have been rapidly see-sawing from one extreme
   to another. Corals have been around for a lot longer, so
   clearly some percentage, or certain genotypes, CAN survive
   such extremes. 'Nature' is dynamic, not something freeze-
   dried and put in a museum case. Ecosystems come and go
   regularly, species come and go regularly. Maybe we're
   causing GW, but if it wasn't us it would be a volcanic
   surge or whatever soon enough to scramble the environment.
   Far worse things have happened to the earth than just
   the CO2 level doubling - yet life in general survived and
   thrived and adapted to the new realities. 

   Long long ago, some nasty little layered colonial organisms
   released a hideous pollutant into the atmosphere that killed
   maybe 90% of all life on the planet. It was called 'GO' -
   or 'global oxygenation'. We exist because of it. I'm not
   saying it's a great idea to blithely cause mass extinctions
   but DO put it into some kind of long-term perspective. 

>>   Anyway, think "The everglades in august" or "Brazil" ...
>>   just "all over" instead of way down south. Five times
>>   the CO2 didn't obliterate mammals, so I think we're
>>   pretty damned safe from the levels projected by even
>>   the most extremeist Goreites.
>
>One factor which you're not taking into account is that the sun was less 
>luminous 50-55 millions years ago than it is now.

   I'll need a cite for that. It's likely provable since it would
   have an impact on how quickly certain isotopes were created.

>Over the last 500 
>million years or so the earth's temperature has remained reasonably 
>constant, the increased solar luminosity being offset by reductions in 
>atmospheric CO2 levels.

   The earths temperature has NOT remained 'relatively constant'. It's
   be way up, several times. There have been a number of very abrupt
   changes. The past 10 millions years represents a considerable
   thermal analomy ... it's been far COLDER than 'normal'. Any GW we
   produce would actually be bringing the planet closer to its
   typical, tropical, temperatures. That link I provided contains a
   graph. Read it.