A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The run-away greenhouse is impossible



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 24th 08, 03:49 PM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:


And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.


The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.


Okay, and so what's this got to do with whether or not "life on Earth"
will evolve to rectify the climate?

Yousuf Khan
  #12  
Old June 24th 08, 04:14 PM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

tadchem wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.


Not that he said that...

I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
religion).



Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. I was talking about life on Earth,
not the Earth itself as a living thing.

Anyways, the Gaia Hypothesis segments into "Weak" and "Strong" versions.
The Weak Gaia Theories are completely provable and actually undeniable,
as models they fit the planet Earth like nylon. But the Weak Theories
are only advocating that which is blatantly obvious: the advent of life
on Earth has affected its environment. The Strong Gaia Theories go
further and model the Earth like an organism itself. The Strong Gaia
Theory may not be provable for a very long time, and it may only be
provable through hindsight through history.

Regarding the theory as a neo-religion, it was proposed by Dr. James
Lovelock, a NASA consultant, with a background in chemistry and
medicine. He was studying tests for finding life on Mars at the time.
The poetic nature of the theory's name, Gaia, was proposed by Lovelock's
friend, novelist William Golding. Although the theory has been taken up
by environmentalists, it hasn't taken on religious proportions. It's
unfortunate the name turns off so many people, many who haven't even
read it, automatically assume things just based on the name alone.

Yousuf Khan
  #13  
Old June 24th 08, 05:03 PM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

On Jun 24, 11:14*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
tadchem wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:42 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
The planet is not a living organism. Organism live on the planet.


Not that he said that...


I read Yousef's comment as discussing the effect of "life on Earth"
collectively. not that the earth itself is alive, nor that he
personally endorses the Gaia 'Hypothesis' (really a New-Age neo-
religion).


Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. I was talking about life on Earth,
not the Earth itself as a living thing.

Anyways, the Gaia Hypothesis segments into "Weak" and "Strong" versions.
The Weak Gaia Theories are completely provable and actually undeniable,
as models they fit the planet Earth like nylon. But the Weak Theories
are only advocating that which is blatantly obvious: the advent of life
on Earth has affected its environment. The Strong Gaia Theories go
further and model the Earth like an organism itself. The Strong Gaia
Theory may not be provable for a very long time, and it may only be
provable through hindsight through history.

Regarding the theory as a neo-religion, it was proposed by Dr. James
Lovelock, a NASA consultant, with a background in chemistry and
medicine. He was studying tests for finding life on Mars at the time.
The poetic nature of the theory's name, Gaia, was proposed by Lovelock's
friend, novelist William Golding. Although the theory has been taken up
by environmentalists, it hasn't taken on religious proportions. It's
unfortunate the name turns off so many people, many who haven't even
read it, automatically assume things just based on the name alone.

* * * * Yousuf Khan


well, if you look at it objectively, the climate on earth has for most
of its existence been hotter, moister, and much more carbon dioxidey;
life, in the form of plants, has altered this by sucking up a lot of
CO2 during the carboniferous era and burying the carbon, creating an
anomalous situation of higher potential energy; humanity and/or human
civiliation is just the particular manifestation of the inevitable
result of a high potential energy situation, which is that some
mechanism eventually emerges to restore the lower energy state. the
rock eventually rolls down the hill. unfortunately, for us, once that
potential energy is gone, the mechanism which it drove generally dies
off. so, once the earth is restored to 1500 ppm of co2 in the air,
high humidity, and temps 10 degrees higher than today, we will be
redundant and obsolete.

but the good news is that there's no real reason to expect that the
"runaway greenhouse" will continue to make the earth a lake of melted
solder, given that the closest thing to a stable state the climate
has shown is that 10 degrees warmer. might be some overshoot, of
course, for a few million years or so.
  #14  
Old June 25th 08, 12:41 AM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fred Kasner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
This wasn't supposed to go to soc.men actually.

My point (I didn't quite finish) was that there can be no such
thing as a true 'run-away greenhouse', that there can be no
abrupt tipping point but only a gradual change. It is
nonetheless irreversible, though.

Also, this has no effect on projections of man-made global
warming, as it can't occur unless solar input is considerably
higher than today.

Andrew Usher


And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan


It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
quickly destructive catastrophes.
FK
  #15  
Old June 25th 08, 12:52 AM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

Fred Kasner wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
This wasn't supposed to go to soc.men actually.

My point (I didn't quite finish) was that there can be no such
thing as a true 'run-away greenhouse', that there can be no
abrupt tipping point but only a gradual change. It is
nonetheless irreversible, though.

Also, this has no effect on projections of man-made global
warming, as it can't occur unless solar input is considerably
higher than today.

Andrew Usher


And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan


It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
quickly destructive catastrophes.
FK


Look, we're only talking about an average temp increase of 10 degC.
There's more than that between equatorial and mid lattitudes.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London
  #16  
Old June 25th 08, 12:53 AM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Darwin123
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

On Jun 22, 8:18 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:


And according to the Gaia Hypothesis, life on Earth itself will evolve
to absorb and subsume any climate conditions that will lead to runaway
greenhouse effects.

Yousuf Khan


Yes, and it won't include human beings. The extremophile bacteria
will have the run of the place.
I mean, you as an individual have white blood cells. Do you care
it they all die? As long as you don't get an infection, you are happy.
You have no concern over the life and well being of individual cells
in your body. They could be suffering the agonies of hell, but as long
as your brain is happy you will not be concerned.
The same for this supposed Gaia (which I don't really believe
exists). An organism doesn't pay attention to its own components. If
Gaia can remain healthy with just a few unintelligent, extremophile
bacteria, she will be happy. Without human beings, she may be even
happier.
I don't think Gaia is a useful hypothesis for anything. In
effect, it merely says that some organisms will survive no matter
what. And that they will probably affect the geology of the earth
somewhere down the line. Most of us are concerned with only with human
beings, or maybe with the inclusion of a few animal relatives. I
definitely would like to see dolphins and chimpanzees survive with us.
But most cultures can't even see other human beings as worth the skin.
I will not trust any deity, least of all Gaia, to protect our
interests.
All and all, I think it would be best if we reduce our carbon
footprint. Let the deities take care of themselves. If we can't
control ourselves, then maybe human beings would be better off extinct.
  #17  
Old June 25th 08, 02:59 AM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

Fred Kasner wrote:
It would have to have life develop into a very different set of species
than we now have. Most or intolerant of high temperatures as this tends
to cause proteins to degenerate. And protein specificity and moderate
temperatures allows this. With very high temperatures there might
continue to be unicellular life forms that can tolerate such but not
multicellular and highly specialized life forms. Besides such radical
evolutionary changes would take tens if not hundreds of millions of
years. By then higher life forms might very well have succumbed to more
quickly destructive catastrophes.



Hardly! Most of the species needed to rectify the climate probably
already exist now. Really, if you look at the history of evolution, it's
not a matter of developing new species to take advantage of a new
condition. The species already existed at the time of the change in
condition, and something that was just getting along before, will all of
a sudden shoot to prominence in the new regime.

So that's what's going to happen now too. Some species will go extinct,
while others will begin to flourish.

Yousuf Khan
  #18  
Old June 25th 08, 07:02 AM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

Darwin123 wrote:
Yes, and it won't include human beings. The extremophile bacteria
will have the run of the place.
I mean, you as an individual have white blood cells. Do you care
it they all die? As long as you don't get an infection, you are happy.
You have no concern over the life and well being of individual cells
in your body. They could be suffering the agonies of hell, but as long
as your brain is happy you will not be concerned.


Yeah, of course I would care if all of my white blood cells died, so
would you, because that would mean that you have some kind of
immunological disease such as AIDS, and you're gonna die. I wouldn't
care about individual white blood cells, but as long as there were
enough of them around to keep me functioning, I'd be happy. Same goes
for my heart cells, and lung cells, etc., etc. Our bodies maintain an
average temperature of 37°C (98.6°F), not for the sake of our comfort,
but for the sake of keeping our individual cells alive.

If one group of my cells died, then chances are that other groups of my
cells would die too, if they depended on them. And then my whole body
would die. A dead body would initially look the same as a living body,
but not for long, and eventually it'll just be a skeleton. A skeleton is
an immensely less desirable state for a body to be in, than a living one.

The same for this supposed Gaia (which I don't really believe
exists). An organism doesn't pay attention to its own components. If
Gaia can remain healthy with just a few unintelligent, extremophile
bacteria, she will be happy. Without human beings, she may be even
happier.


You're subscribing to the same self-loathing philosophy that most
environmentalists have lifetime memberships in. As far as the
environmentalists are concerned, all of the ills of the world are caused
by humans, and only the humans. All species extinctions are always man's
fault; if they could blame us for the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs
65 million years before man even existed, then they would. And of
course, global warming can't be a natural thing, it must always be man's
fault.

If Gaia is alive, then how do you know that man isn't exactly the
evolution that Gaia needs to go through to keep living? Everything was
leading upto this point where a type of cell evolved that could leave
Gaia and inhabit other planets (much like plant spores) and take Gaia's
legacy with it. The "unintelligent extremophile bacteria" can't take
Gaia into space.

I don't think Gaia is a useful hypothesis for anything. In
effect, it merely says that some organisms will survive no matter
what. And that they will probably affect the geology of the earth
somewhere down the line. Most of us are concerned with only with human
beings, or maybe with the inclusion of a few animal relatives. I
definitely would like to see dolphins and chimpanzees survive with us.
But most cultures can't even see other human beings as worth the skin.
I will not trust any deity, least of all Gaia, to protect our
interests.
All and all, I think it would be best if we reduce our carbon
footprint. Let the deities take care of themselves. If we can't
control ourselves, then maybe human beings would be better off extinct.


Depends on which version of the Gaia Theory you subscribe to. The Weak
Gaia Theories simply state that organisms have changed the environment
of the planet they inhabit. Pretty undeniable stuff, but not very useful.

Strong Gaia Theories, which are the hardest to prove, believe the Earth
itself is the ultimate living organism on Earth. All of the biota and
the abiota living inside it were just the individual cells of this
organism. The Strongest of the Gaia Theories even believe that Earth is
just one of many Gaias in the Universe, and that the entire Universe is
just a giant hive of evolving organisms.

Yousuf Khan
  #19  
Old June 25th 08, 08:15 AM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul Schlyter[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 893
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

In article , Yousuf Khan wrote:

If one group of my cells died, then chances are that other groups of my
cells would die too, if they depended on them. And then my whole body
would die.


Not necessarily. Cells die in your body all the time. Your hair, which grows
all the time, consists mostly of dead cells. The very outermost part of
your skin also consists of dead cells, which protects the living cells
inside the skin and your body. As a matter of fact, almost all of your
body is renewed (= the cells are replaced by other cells) every 5 to 7
years or so (the figure varies depending on which part of the body).
As long as this is in equilibrium, your organism remains healthy. But if
your body would start to generate new cells in an uncontrolled way, you'll
get cancer. And if your body would generate too few new cells, you'll get
sick and die too - the latter often happens to old people.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
  #20  
Old June 25th 08, 08:31 PM posted to soc.men,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.astro
z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default The run-away greenhouse is impossible

On Jun 25, 3:15*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:


Not necessarily. *Cells die in your body all the time. *Your hair, which grows
all the time, consists mostly of dead cells. *The very outermost part of
your skin also consists of dead cells, which protects the living cells
inside the skin and your body. *As a matter of fact, almost all of your
body is renewed (= the cells are replaced by other cells) every 5 to 7
years or so (the figure varies depending on which part of the body).


and i have little funerals for all of them. it's only right.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
they are wraping down the greenhouse now, won't enjoy guilts later H. F. Wainscott-Dundas Amateur Astronomy 0 December 20th 07 06:06 AM
Greenhouse Gas Temperature Feedback GoldMine Policy 8 May 24th 06 07:30 PM
Greenhouse Theory Smashed by Biggest Stone (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 March 14th 06 04:22 PM
Di-Hydrogen Oxide a Greenhouse gas? Robert Miller Science 2 December 26th 03 04:01 PM
Titan greenhouse effect!!!! Hayley UK Astronomy 13 October 7th 03 10:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.