Global Warming and Methane

My brother and I watched a show where they were studying the Bermuda Triangle and if maybe huge methane gas bubbles that rise from the oceanfloor might stop airplanes and sink ships. Methane is lighter than air, and if a plane flies through it it will lose altitude and the engine will die. A huge bubble in the water can create a huge wave that can sink a ship they hypothesized.

http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/renew/bermuda.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1070889.htm

Methane also causes Global Warming;

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060531/D8HUVKSO0.html

"Methane, a "greenhouse" gas, is 10 times more effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming."

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

5:49 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Order vs Chaos

I was just thinking about something along the lines of what I have posted before. This is more of a philosophical question, than a theological one. But I think it maybe connected to the I.D. debate.

I was thinking of the whole light vs darkness thing, how light requires a source and darkness requires the lack of the source of light. And applying the concept to order and chaos, order requiring a source or controlling mechanism and chaos being the lack of an order producing source.

But further, is light and darkness opposing forces or are they just the result of opposing forces which is the existance of the source and the lack of it?

Light being the evidence of the source of light, not the source in and of itself. Darkness being the evidence of the lack of a light source.

A room is bright because of the lit bulb, not because of the light that fills the room.

This principle applied to order and chaos, means order is a result, an evidence of the source of order. Its not a force in and of itself.
Chaos is evidence of the lack of the source of order. Its a result of less input from the source of order.

Then the question is what is the souce of order? It can't be chaos, anymore than the source of light can be darkness.

6:59 AM - 6 Comments - 3 Kudos - Add Comment

Light vs Darkness

While in my study of Law vs Grace, I was reading some books on the basis for philosophical thinking.

Aristotle on his writings Metaphysics explores the concept of good vs evil as the basis for philosophical thinking and exploration. Aristotle wrote of Alcmaeon of Croton that followed in Pythagoras footsteps and coined the term contrarieties to refer to concepts that were contrasted opposites. The theory uses examples such as night vs day or light vs darkness, life vs death, etc.

I used to think, that good and evil were basically equal and opposite forces, their strengths at the furthest end of the spectrum from each other. Like a teeter/totter or a yin/yang type of enigma. Like a balance between two equal forces.

The Bible in its origins on morality, compares good vs evil as light vs darkness. This is a pretty interesting concept if you really think it through and explore all that that metaphor means.

Light and darkness are not equal. Darkness is the lack of light. Light can overcome darkness but darkness cant overcome light. Darkness hides from light behind and inside objects. Light at full strength destroys darkness, while darkness is only at full strength in the absence of light. Darkness appears as strong as light, in lights absence, but when light appears it makes darkness flee.

Another aspect that is interesting is that light requires power and a source, while darkness is the absence of that power and source.

Now apply this principle to various things that God says he is the source of, life, good, righteousness, light, order, truth, etc.

A lie only appears to have power in the absence of truth. Death appears to overcome life, but death is merely the absence of life.

Mankind has been stumped by the origin of life and the origin of the universe because they dont want to accept the fact that both require power and a source. Its like trying to find a theory to explain the light in your room if there is no electricity or light bulb or candle. The light is the effect of the source, the light is evidence of the sources existence.

Primordial existence was inert uniformity or chaos, the cosmos is a harmonious, systematic, complex, orderly system that because of entropy wants to break back down into inert uniformity or chaos.

Chaos requires no power and no source, in fact entropy is the breaking down of matter as it releases its energy or power. While order requires energy or power and it requires a source.

A pile of sand is natural and chaotically random, a sand castle is complex and requires energy to build the chaotic natural sand pile into the castle and it requires someone to do it. After it is built and done, and the energy is not being spent to keep the castle standing, or with no more input from the child who built it. The sand castle will fall, it might take time, but it will revert back to its natural state of chaos. Or lack of order and energy.

The complexities of the natural world, and the power it takes to keep them in their complex state point to a source of that energy if it is true that their natural tendency is to break back down into chaos.

If the Genesis account is true, and God created the cosmos and rested on the seventh day. Then like the sand castle that was built by the child, once the building stops, the deterioration begins. Both God and the child could continue to do maintenance work to keep their creation standing as long as they are inclined. But without them spending energy to keep their creation 'up' it will fall.

Think about this whole concept just on a personal level, we are full of darkness unless we allow the source of light into our lives. We are headed towards death without accepting the source of life. All that we are lacking comes from the source of our creation. On our own without his hand in our lives we are headed for destruction.

4:04 PM - 5 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Evolution or Devolution?
Current mood: curious

Evolution or Devolution?

When someone asks if you believe in evolution, and your response is 'no', often times there is a gasp of astonishment. As if you said you don't believe in gravity.

The problem is the word 'evolution' encompasses a wide range of science and theory. The question is sort of like asking someone do you like music, it very much depends on what you mean by music. Yes I like some of it, but some of it I don't.

The first thing that is needed is a clarification, a seperation of the facts from the theories.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING
  b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION
  c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse  to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH
    (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and
          economic advance 
  d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY
  b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin
      in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due
      to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or
    an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of
      action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
  b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances --
      often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated
      freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
      principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
   b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
   c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
      <theory of equations>

Evolution is a theory because it is based on speculation that various scientific principles have a relation to each other in the development of species.

Some of the principles included in the theory are;

 1. Species Adaptability
 2. Enviremental Affects
 3. Survival of the Fittest
 4. Geneology
 5. Mutational Effects

Species adaptability is easily witnessed, in a lesser degree by animals fur becoming thicker in the winter. Animals systems will adapt to their enviremets. Another example would be the difference between domesticated and wild animials. Wild foxes appearance when domesticated becomes increasingly similar to that of a small dog. Their ears become floppy, and their fur becomes softer, etc.

http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf

This is also related to the enviremental effects, and survival of the fittest. Polar bears and seals and penguins may be some of the only animals to live in arctic regions because other animals would become extinct too quickly and probably did.

Evolution then assumes through geneology and mutation coupled with the above effects that this produces changes or distinguishable differences in species. This can be deceptive though. Various breeds of species can be produced which have wide variances in appearance and still retain the exact same DNA. A poodle is still a dog, even though it looks very different from a great dane or an old english sheep dog. And all dogs have the same DNA as wolves.

Using the dog family as an example then look at the fossil record of horses, were the horses evolving or just varied breeds? Chahuahua's didnt evolve into beagles and then into collies and the into great danes. The differences are genetic and enviremental.

The 'missing link' is the hybrid or cross-species examples. Even mating various breeds within species can have undesireable effect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030808081854.htm

"Mules are bred by humans from horses and donkeys, are completely sterile, and represent an evolutionary dead-end. But there are other species-crossings that do just fine, such as offspring of the notoriously promiscuous oak tree species, which hybridize so often species-namers commonly joke about not being able to keep up."

Animals have an undesireable outcome from cross breeding, but a plant is a different story.

"Still, cross-species matings usually result in sickness or sterility, if the offspring get that far -- many naturally abort. Hybrid offspring that are  fertile but sick or weak will not be able to compete with the purer offspring of either parent in passing on their genes to future generations. As a result, many evolutionary biologists have thought hybridization to be evolutionarily unimportant."

The idea is that with generations of 'genetic errors' or mutations a species becomes increasingly more complex. Life itself is the controling mechanism, and the errors are the result of natural chaos. Life tries to adapt to the enviremental chaos around it, but chromasomal errors I would contend are  where the life fails to adapt or control the chaos. Its where the system breaks down, not an improvement.

Most errors in the genetic code, or DNA result in situations such as the various Chromosome Diseases and Chromosomal Abnormalities.

http://www.mass.gov/dph/fch/genetics/geneticconditions.htm

If even small changes in the genetic code, that happen on their own, have undesirable effect how do you have generations after generations of organisms which supposedly improved and became more complex from these types of changes or mutations?

Science theorizes that the universe was the most complex at its inception, and has since been on a downward trend through entropy. The arrow of time. This is a law of science that when chaos takes over it breaks down the control. The introduction of chaos is detrimental to systems. It is the very anti-agent to existance.

It stands to reason, the reason we are still looking for the 'missing link' is because there isn't one. Life would follow the laws of science more correctly to say that while it can try to adapt to the introduction of chaos in the envirement, and it can try to adapt to the introduction of chaos in the genetic code. But, the effects of chaos are detrimental to a complex system. With each subsequent generation, and the culmination of multigenerational errors the species should become increasingly weaker, not more complex. Like a photocopy of a photocopy.

The examples of where a species has improved through genetic engineering and breeding as in the article linked above, has been done by man in a controlled  study. Not through chaos or random errors.

10:06 PM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Order out of Chaos
Current mood: awake

Science theorizes the primordial existence was chaos or inert uniformity which is ruled by chaos. When the "big bang" occurred, the outcome was the cosmos. If you look up the word cosmos, it says an orderly harmonious systematic universe .

1:26 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Global Warming
Current mood: amused

(Note: This assumes the Global timescale is as theorized.)

12:27 AM - 8 Comments - 3 Kudos - Add Comment

Politics & Christianity

People in general know more about their politics than their religious views. And I use the word religious loosely.

My personal opinion, and one that is hard to explain because people get hung up on terms, is our primary relationship is with God. Not our fellow man or our country. After God, its our fellow man, then our country.

Our 'religion' is Christianity, it is the study of how we relate to God and how he relates to us. The scripture 'testifies' to that relationship. It is what it is whether we agree with it or not. We have to accept it, for what it says. It also teaches us the relationshp we should have toward our fellow man.

Politics in my mind is man's answers to how we treat our fellow man, and our country, sometmes it might line up with God's ways but it might not as well. The fact that many want a seperation from 'government' and God, testifies to the idea that this is man's ways. Man's answers to man's problems.

We have to be in the world but not of it, so primarily, our dedication should be to God. But we have to interact with the world and its ways. Most religious people try to match up their politics to their religious views I believe, but the part that scares me, is if they start blending the two to the point they think they are parallel. Man's ways will never fully represent God's ways. There is no political party or ideology that fully represents God's ways. Because there is not a person that does.

The democratic party represents a mixture of man's ways and God's ways and the republican party represents a mixture of man's ways and God's ways. And every other minor party is the same.

My pesonal opinion is that both major parties focus on an aspect of God and not God. I've used this analogy before, but just like in the katrina hurricane. The two things required to save mankind was law/order and love/compassion. Law and Order for those that choose to do evil and love and compassion for those that choose to do good or realize they need saved. The two things work together to stop the evil and save the people from impending doom. God sent both into the world for the same reason, the Law in the old Testament and the Grace in the New Testament. The Law is written for those that do evil, authorites are a terror to those that do evil. But the Law doesn't save us, thats not its job, we are saved by Grace.

I believe people have a natural leaning to one side or the other, Law or Grace. And because of that leaning they seperate into two groups (generally) the republicans (war, capital punishment, morality, law) and the democrats (affirmitive action, freedom of choice, welfare, compassion).

When in reality God's ways are not one or the other but a balance of both. People tend to choose one and attack the other. Politics in the united states is like the right hand attacking the left. The real key to understanding any of it is understanding the source of everything which is God.

Footnote: There are other aspects of the divide which should be considered as well, such as the religion vs secularism or conservativism vs liberalism. But they really are indipendant of each other to a degree, you can have secular or religious democrats and republicans, conservative or liberal democrats and republicans.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

4:34 PM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

No Extraterrestrials Here...
Current mood: determined

Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the generation of life from non-living matter. The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. There are different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes that are currently under debate. The Miller-Urey experiment, which produced Amino Acids under a controlled environment to simulate a very young earth is generally accepted as the beginnings of the ground up approach. Although it too has its shortcomings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

But the General principle is that certain conditions are required for the spontaneous generation of life, in its early one cell sensitive state. Water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2)., as well as specific temperatures and atmospheric conditions (lightning) were needed. The unlisted variables that are also required, are also a certain type of sun, a relatively stable temperature, etc. Some scientists have hypothesized there are 32 separate variables required. And that is probably a low estimate. The probability for all 32 parameters occurring simultaneously is one in 1042 - less than one chance in one quintillion that even one such planet should occur anywhere in universe, it has been estimated.

A chemist I knew once argued, Well thats life as we know it, Life exists in many harsh environments on earth. This is an example of a person who doesnt clearly understand the experiment. Life can, once it exists adapt to very harsh environments. That is different than what is required for spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. If life could spontaneously generate under any conditions, then there would be life everywhere, on the moon, in space, on the sun, on every planet in our solar system. Scientists understand the restraints, that is why they look for water on Mars for example. Hoping that at one time in Mars history its temperatures and conditions would be such that would allow for the generation of the life building blocks.

(That doesn't even begin to get into the debate of how you get from amino acids to man, or if you can, but thats a subject for another day.)

Where the Chaos theory comes into play; being the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system. For example, Wilson A. Bentley did a study where he looked at over 5000 snowflakes under a microscope and found that they all have a different structure. Which is where the idea that all snowflakes are different comes from. Several factors affect snowflake formation. Temperature, air currents, and humidity all influence shape and size. Dirt and dust particles can get mixed up in the water and affect crystal weight and durability. The dirt particles make the snowflake heavier, and can cause cracks and breaks in the crystal and make it easier to melt. Snowflake formation is a dynamic process. A snowflake may encounter many different environmental conditions, sometimes melting it, sometimes causing growth, always changing its structure.
http://snowflakebentley.com/

The issue for life is really that the same principle that controls snowflake formation (chaos) is the same principle that would control solar system and planetary formation. Only in the case of planets and solar systems there would be even greater variability because there are less constraints. Some solar systems have no planets, ours as an example has 9 or 10 if you count the rock past pluto, but only one with the requirements for abiogenesis. If only a few variables can produce infinite variations in snow flake structure because of chaos, to the degree that looking at over 5000 can not produce two with the same structure. Then you would have to look at many, many, many more solar systems and planets to find two the same if its even possible. We would have to find another earth, and the chances of finding one is much smaller than the chances of finding two identical snowflakes because of the higher level of variability. Scientists understand this very well, thats why they launch explorations in search of another earth. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/

Basically, the chances of ever finding another planet with the requirements for abiogenesis is next to none, And even if by chance there is another earth out here some where, because of statistics it would not be Close enough to earth for us to ever find it.

The closests stars to our solar system are Alpha Centauri, Beta Centauri, and the closest of the three, Proxima Centauri. These stars are about 4.3 light years away. A light year is the distance that light travels in one year in a vacuum or about 5.88 trillion miles (9.46 trillion kilometers) Written out, that distance is 6,000,000,000,000 miles. Traveling at the speed of light it would take 4 years to get to the closest star to ours.

A material object can not travel at the speed of light. Only things which are massless can travel at the speed of light, and in fact they MUST travel at the speed of light.

This is a major scientific reason we are not being visited by aliens. It would take many, many years to travel from 'the other earth', if there is one, to ours.....after they found us.

Here is a list of the 32 parameters;

1. Galaxy type (.1) If too elliptical (and therefore not spiral), star formation would have ceased before sufficient heavy elements could be produced and incorporated into a planet to support life chemistry. If too irregular, radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available in sufficient quantities.

2. Galaxy size (.1) If too small, the gravitational field of the galaxy will be too weak to hold on to most of the heavy elements produced in supernova explosions. The inertia of the ejected particles will carry most of them into intergalactic space, making them unavailable for later planetary formation. If too large, radiation levels will be too high for advanced life.

3. Supernova rates and proximity (.01) If too close or too frequent or too late in the development of a galaxy, life on a planet would be exterminated by radiation. If too far away or too infrequent or too soon in the development of a galaxy, not enough heavy elements would be available at the time a planet forms for it to later be able to support life.

4. White dwarf binaries (a hot dwarf star revolving around a larger star companion).These stars are the only place in the universe where there exists the kind of nuclear reaction necessary to produce the element fluorine, which is also necessary for life chemistry.(.05) If too few, insufficient fluorine would be produced to later be incorporated into a planet to allow life chemistry to proceed. If too many, that would mean that the stellar density is so great that planetary orbits would be disrupted and life could not be maintained for long periods of time. If too early in the development of a galaxy, not enough heavy elements would have been available for efficient fluorine production. If too late in the development of a galaxy, fluorine would have been produced too late to be available for incorporation into a developing planet.

5. Parent star location.For a variety of reasons, only stars located between the spiral arms of a galaxy could have a life-supporting planet. Likewise, the system must be at the co-rotational radius in order to maintain its favored position. (.00001) If located within a spiral arm, high stellar density would increase radiation and lead to destabilization of planetary orbits. If much farther out than our sun, the quantities of heavy elements necessary to make a planet like earth would have been insufficient and the star would eventually get swept into a spiral arm as it caught up with the star. If much closer in than our sun, it would also be impossible to maintain a favorable location for long, as the star would again be swept up into a high stellar density arm.

6. Amplitude of vertical motion away from the galactic plane as a stellar system revolves around the galactic center. (.1) If great enough to carry the system out of line with the rather narrow band of dust clouds that shield a system from the extreme radiation emitted from the galactic core, radiation levels would greatly rise during the twice per revolution period (about every 100 million years) when the star would be outside the protective zone.Such exposure would be catastrophic to advanced life.The sun is one of the relatively few stars that always remains close to the galactic plane.

7. Number of stars in the planetary system.(.2) Any planet that is revolving around a double star could not maintain a stable orbit, and thus could not support life. Likewise, a planet not revolving around any star would obviously be far too cold for life. Therefore, there must be one and only one star around which the planet revolves.

8. Parent star birth date with respect to the parent galaxy.(.2) If much more recent than our sun, the star would not have been in its stable burning phase for a long enough period to support advance life. If significantly older than our sun (and therefore a star that developed early in the life of the galaxy), there would not have been enough heavy elements available for the formation of an earth-like planet.

9. Parent star age. (.4) If either much older or much younger than our sun, the star would not be in a stable burning period and the luminosity of the star would change too quickly.

10. Parent star mass.(.001) If slightly greater than our sun, the star would burn too rapidly and the luminosity would be too unstable. If slightly less than our sun, the range of distances a life-supporting planet could be from the star would become too narrow; and if such a planet were at that exact distance for proper temperature, the tidal forces involved would be so great that the rotational period of the planet would be slowed down much too fast.

11. Parent star color (which is dependent on surface temperature).(.4)
If either redder (cooler) or bluer (hotter) than our sun, the "bell curve" that represents the radiation coming from the star would be shifted one way or the other.The entire process involved in plants producing food through photosynthesis would be negatively affected, as the percentage of visible light within the total amount of radiation energy (which must be the same in order to have the same temperature on the planet's surface) would be reduced, thus making photosynthesis less efficient.Also, a certain amount of UV light is necessary.This would be significantly reduced with a cooler sun (leading to reduced efficiency in the production of certain nutrients) and significantly increased with a hotter sun (leading to cell damage). (This also, of course, is affected by the ozone shield).

12. Parent star luminosity relative to the introduction of new life forms on a planet.(.0001) If the rate of introduction of life forms that decreased the greenhouse effect were too slow, the increase in luminosity would have resulted in a runaway greenhouse effect. If the rate were too fast, then the too rapid reduction in the greenhouse effect would have resulted in runaway glaciation.

13. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount of radiant energy impinging on the surface)(.1) If significantly greater than the earth's, runaway glaciation would develop. If significantly less than the earth's, runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

14. Distance from parent star (.001) If slightly farther out, the planet would become too cold to maintain a stable water cycle (also resulting in runaway glaciation). If slightly closer, the planet would be too hot to maintain a stable water cycle (also resulting in runaway greenhouse effect).

15. Surface gravity (escape velocity)(.001) If stronger, the planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane, both of which would be detrimental to life. If weaker, the planet's atmosphere would loose too much water.

16. Orbital eccentricity(.3) If much more than the 1.6 is, seasonal temperature differences would become too extreme. 

17. Axial tilt(.3) If much greater than the ideal of 23.5 degrees, the surface temperature differences between summer and winter for most of the planet would be too extreme for advanced life. If much less than 23.5 degrees, the regions of the earth with climates suitable for advanced life would be greatly narrowed.

18. Rotation period(.1) If much longer than 24 hours, the diurnal temperature differences would be too great. If much shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great, as the forces that drive the winds become much stronger.

19. Age of the planet (?) If too young, the rotation period would be too fast for all but primitive life. If too old, the rotation period would have been braked by tidal interaction to the point where it would be too long.

20. Collision rate with asteroids and comets during early and subsequent periods of planet's history(.1) If much greater than earth, there would be too much destruction of habitat and too many species would become extinct. If much less than earth, the planet would have received too little of the heavier elements necessary for life.In other words, the planet must have high levels of outside material coming in during its early history, and much less later on.

21. Magnetic field of the planet(.01) If too strong, electromagnetic storms would be too severe (i.e., they themselves, along with a too powerful van Allen Belt, would become sources of detrimental radiation). If too weak, life on land would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.

22. Gravitational interaction with a moon(.1) If much greater than that between the earth and its moon, the tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If much less, instabilities in the rotational axis of the earth would cause climatic instabilities; the movement of nutrients in coastal regions would be insufficient.

23. Thickness of the crust(.01) If much thicker than the earth, too much oxygen would be absorbed in oxidation and then fixed in the crust without being available for recycling within the atmosphere.The crust can be thought of as a layer of "rust" covering the earth.If too much oxygen is taken up into this "rust", then too little is available for the atmosphere in the form of C0 2, H2O or 0 2. Likewise, plate tectonics would not operate efficiently. If much thinner than the earth, volcanic and tectonic activity (the movement of plates that cause earthquakes) would become too intense for advanced life to thrive.

24. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere (.01) If much greater than 21organic material would burn up too easily (fires would start and get out of control much too frequently). If much less than 21advanced animals would have too little to breathe.

25. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere(.1) If much larger, advanced life chemistry would proceed too quickly. If much smaller, advanced life chemistry would proceed too slowly.

26. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere(.01) If much higher, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop. If much lower, plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.

27. Water vapor level in atmosphere (.01) If much higher, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop. If much lower, rainfall would be too sparse for advanced life on land.

28. Atmospheric electric discharge rate(.1) If much greater, too much fire destruction would occur. If much less, too little nitrogen would be transferred from the air to the soil.

29. Ozone level in upper atmosphere(.01) If too high, surface temperatures would be lower, restricting life zones. If too low, surface temperatures would rise and more importantly, increased UV radiation would be harmful to life.

30. Soil mineralization(.1) If either too nutrient poor or too nutrient rich, the diversity and complexity of life forms becomes more limited.

31. Seismic activity(.1) If too intense, the impact on advanced life forms would be too devastating. If too weak, nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

32. Oceans-to-continents ratio(.2) If either much greater or much smaller than the roughly 3 to 1 ratio of earth, the diversity and complexity of life forms becomes much more restricted.

11:02 PM - 3 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment