Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 08/19/2009 9:01:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
August 18, 2009 — For decades, astronomers and geologists have worried about a paradox. Stellar evolution theory claims sunlight on the early earth would have been 20-30% dimmer than it is today, but geology shows the oceans were liquid in the earliest (Archean) rocks. For that matter, so does the book of Genesis, but that record is not usually allowed in scientific discussions. Anyway, how could the earth remained warm enough under a dim sun to keep the oceans from freezing? This has been called the “faint young sun paradox.” A new answer came from researchers at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and University of Copenhagen’s Department of Chemistry, published this month in PNAS.[1]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Ping!
Look dude, don’t confuse the evos with the facts, okay?
Yes, it is very tempting to let them remain in their world of make believe. Is this what doctors feel like when they give newborns their first dose of reality?
Thanks for the ping!
Kirk Cameron and his highly stimulating discussion on the atheist’s biggest fear, the banana or as I would call the video, “Kirk, The Creationist’s Biggest Fool.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
Suddenly we have a heretofore unheard of GHG still based on the evil carbon atom that both saved the planet and verifies the overwhelming power of atmospheric gases to set the earth’s thermostat; then, along came the precursers of human life, a dramatically increasing surge of oxidizing agents and the worst, first iceage was born.
The only thing to conclude here is that, whether by the dump truck load or by the teaspoon, carbon is anathema to this pristine orb and life must be snuffed out for its [earth] peaceful survival.
I had never thought of the banana that way. But now that you mention it...
The site’s claim of having to “thread a needle” is not true. The authors of the paper were merely showing different scenarios. This is standard for any scientific paper.
The “special pleading” that the site points is nothing more than pointing a need for further study. There’s nothing wrong or uncommon with that.
It appears that the website is trying to create the appearance of confusion.
The only problem I see is the attempt to tie past volcanic records in with phony global warming.
A 7 degree drop in temperature would not result in cold enough temperatures to freeze any ocean.
Quote mining again.
I spent a whole semester 26 years ago working for a professor in his study of carbonyl sulfide. Our work had nothing to do with its greenhouse gas properties.
If you perform a scholarly Google search on carbonyl sulfide, you'll find that there are about 1,670 references. Just because you have never heard of carbonyl sulfide and its greenhouse properties does not mean that no one is aware of them.
It didn’t make Lisa Jackson’s list; now tell me true, were the hits you found a matter of investigating carbonyl sulphide’s climate-altering properties?
I did find this excerpt from an abstract (subsription required):
“The Global Budget of Atmospheric Carbonyl Sulphide
Supervisors: Paul Palmer, Michael Barkley michael.barkley@ed.ac.uk
Carbonyl sulphide (COS) is the most abundant and most long-lived sulphur gas in the atmosphere.
The main sources of COS are outgassing from the oceans, anthropogenic emissions,
biomass burning and emissions from wetlands. The main sinks for COS are plant uptake and
oxidation by OH. Since the lifetime of COS is of the order of years, it can be transported to the
stratosphere where it is oxidized to form sulphate particles that influence the radiation budget at
the Earth’s surface and the stratospheric ozone cycle. Although the main sources and sinks of
COS are known, the global budget of COS is inherently uncertain as there are few observational
records. Satellite measurements of COS provide top-down constraints on the COS budget and offer
insight to global and regional COS processes.”
From a cursory glance, most of the articles I showed in the search mention COS as a greenhouse gas. It's not one of the bigger players now but, in earlier times when the earth was much volcanically activie, it could have played a big role in trapping heat.
I don't have time to look right now, but if I recall correctly, we have evidence of a number of times where we had a snowball earth. While volcanos produce greenhouse gases like COS, they also produce particulates, which can cool down the earth dramatically.
It’s the Cretins that can’t handle facts. Or do you think stellar evolution happens in a couple of thousand years?
Either way, it serves only as a distraction right now from the efforts to resolve the many uncertainies in the models driving the politics of the issue, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.