Global Warming tit-for-tat

reply to post by TheRedneck

The temperature changes predicted for the next century are minor when concerning chemical equilibria, and will not cause new reactions to occur in any case. At the most, there could be a slight increase in reaction rates of presently occurring reactions. Now, if you know of a chemical reaction that does not occur at one presently experienced temperature, and yet occurs at 5°C above that temperature, please let me know so I can eat my words. BTW, I remind you that ice melting is not a chemical reaction but a physical one.

I cited one already

Sodium Benzoate

In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate may form benzene,[8] a known carcinogen. Heat, light and shelf life can affect the rate at which benzene is formed.

Hawaiian punch (which uses sod ben as a preservative)left in the sunlight = benzene taint. Thats just room temperature + a few degrees of sunlight.

NOW: If you are looking for chem reactions in the open envirion (as a huge vat of hawaiian punch being poured over a farm land and turning into a huge Benzene hazard seems... a tad unlikely ).. The following is off the top, I would need to dig for a bit to find specifics:

There are concepts like Heat Flux

The potential of increase of acididity (reduced PH) in soil already contaminated by fertilizers and *-cides. Not only heat catalyzes, but PH balances shift as well.

Compost heaps are ===almost=== a good example as they have all sorts of reactions that occur just because they sit in the sun.

It is a given (presumably uncontested fact) that heat catalyzes chemical reactions. Reduced heat slows them, increased heat speeds. You have countless areas that are just big 'witch cauldrons' with all sorts of chemicals in them with potential to go either way.

Do you have a link to this connection between bacteria and soil erosion?

Aside from Cryptogrammic Soil? (Cyanobacteria, integral to preventing soil erosion in the deserts).

Also: Soil Conservation (the area on soil organisms).

Also, do you have proof that humans have been directly responsible for all the extinctions in the last 100 or even the last 50 years? Is it possible that the extinctions themselves were due to natural events? Is that not what drives evolution in theory?

Come on now, no straw men. I did not say man was responsible for all the extinctions of even last year. Hunting of tigers has led to extinction of members of that family. Thats just off the top. Mankind is certainly responsible for a portion of extinctions. We also do not know the actual impacts of even the most seemingly irrelevant extinction.

It is physically impossible for the ocean to rise in one location and not in another, unless you know of someone who has figured out a way to change the gravitational constant.

Aside from higher elevation to lower elevations? Kidding aside.
Here is a bit about Venice: Take from it what you will: NOVAs article on Venice

I understand that if one lives in an urban or even suburban area, or if one lives in a desert area, one could easily get the impression that there is a lack of trees and other flora. But I assure you, as someone who for many years made their living by driving back and forth across the USA, there is no shortage of plant life. The majesty that is nature is indeed both fragile and hardy at the same time. Break it, and it will mend.

You sure that you're from a healthy ecosphere everywhere? Or could it perhaps be either there is less of a monetary interest in the areas you frequent or even contract clauses or voluntary buffer zones from logging companies that make it so they don't do logging by the roads(they are restricted from streams and lakes-usually)? If you load up maps.google.com, go to washington state and zoom in on the freeway around like... Vancouver/Portland.
You can see large barren areas, areas with little growth and areas that look normal. Zoom about half way and look around at all the Brown spots-those are the areas that were recently logged. They are required to plant new trees in place, but that takes 20 or so years to replenish. Notice that there is a buffer by the freeway?

In regards to the wildlife returning around the mining area: Awesome (not sarcastic in anyway, still it reads like thats what I'm saying when I look at it )
Only, it's not like that everywhere, it is possible that mine did not go beneath the water table.
Here is a list of risks from mining:
Mining Impacts on the Water Tables etc.

---

Separate note: Not sure about you but the long responses are getting unwieldy, what do you think about breaking things down into a couple replies instead of massive ones?

reply to post by lordtyp0

Separate note: Not sure about you but the long responses are getting unwieldy, what do you think about breaking things down into a couple replies instead of massive ones?

I tend to find that smaller posts make it difficult to keep up with which post is being answered.

Sheesh, you'd think we could agree on something...

Anyway, I want to research your links and it is getting late... so I'll make the rest of my reply tomorrow... which is supposed to be colder than average, btw.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


It's kind of feeling like we might have this topic talked out for now
I originally meant the Title as something of a sarcastic prediction. Not sure if that makes it ironic given the path and depth of the discussion or not.

Anyway, I have certainly enjoyed it thus far. Let me know if you would like to continue.