The probability assigned in the Drake Equation to a planet being in the hospitable zone is actually quite small. I don't remember what it is -- .10 maybe? -- but it's pretty small.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:18:13 -0500, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 12:26 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Global Warming (Re: Epic devestation in Asia) > > > > > Brian wrote: > > > The way I see it, sometimes nature just happens. > > > > > > We seem to think we have some sort of control, for better or worse, over > > > everything. It reminds me a little bit of the global warming debate. I > > seem > > > to recall the earth experienced a massive case of "global warming" > > thousands > > > of years ago when it came out of the Ice Age....I wonder if we caused > > that > > > one too? > > Just because we didn't cause ALL of the warming events doesn't mean that we > aren't causing this one. That logic is completely twisted. (Can a rapist > use the defense that he didn't commit the last rape investigated so he must > not have committed this one?) > > The warming after an ice age is caused for much the same reason: an usually > large release of CO2 in a short (geologically) time span (several thousand > years). As the ice receded it exposes thousands of square miles of dead > organic matter which (as organic matter tends to do) rotted. > > The current case has additional problems. We're releasing vast amounts of > CO2 (in this case from fossil fuel consumption) AND we're destroying the > available CO2 sinks (the forests and jungles, especially in the Amazon and > green ocean algae) which means more of that CO2 ends up in the atmosphere > than ever before. > > The fossil fuel resources that we're expending actually represent former CO2 > sinks (forests) as well, so we're not only destroying the current sinks, but > we're "unlocking" ancient ones as well. > > We're also doing things faster than ever. The glaciers of the last ice age > took thousands of years to recede and release that CO2 - we're set to match > that output in much less time (perhaps much, much less time). > > Lastly the damage to the ozone still has to figure in completely, but it > seems more and more likely that allowing more energetic radiation in through > the atmosphere will act as an accelerating factor. > > It's also becoming quite clear that relatively minor changes in global > climate has tremendously vast implications over the long term. Most models > are now showing, to circle around, that the last ice age was the result of > very small global temperature changes. > > (As an aside this affects another hobby of mine, the search for intelligent > life in the universe. Unfortunately the evidence that small changes create > huge implications could also mean that the chances for planets to form in > the possibly rather thin "hospitable" zone around a star are very small. > Then again atmospheric composition could also play a much larger regulating > role and the zone could be quite broad. Anyway... it's not really part of > the discussion.) > > So, is man the only cause of Global Warming? No, of course not. But is he > the cause of THIS global warming? Most scientists would agree that in large > part, yes he is. At the very least he's a major contributing factor. > > Jim Davis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:141116 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
