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
In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate may form benzene, 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?
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...
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
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?