Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[shel90]

Not the ozone, CO2. You brought up that question specifically about CO2.

When I asked the question hypothetically, I was thinking by the total elimination of rain forests, wouldnt that increase the CO2 levels in the ozone to dangerous levels?

 

[kokonut]

Yes, and IF you contend that we are actually warming up, why does it matter so much that Gore's hometown breaks the 1877 cold temperature? It has nothing to do with CO2 at all, you know that? Koko - ah, but it does. It does. You just helped me. If the cold has nothing to do with CO2 then certainly global warming or the heating has nothing to do with CO2. You are basically arguing that since it's relatively cooler than before, there cannot be global warming. Koko - you're missing the whole point. Again. It's about the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, not about whether we have actually warmed up over the last hundred years or what have you. You posted graphs showing that the temp has been "stable" yet paradoxically, you say we're warming up. Koko - sigh....you really do need help. The temperature has been static (not stable, big difference in terms here) over the last 10 to 11 years while CO2 continues to go up. That's a conundrum. If the claim that there is a direct correlation, a relationship, that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming then we should have seen a continued increasing in temperature over last 11 years so far. But no, that wasn't the case. A conundrum if you will. I've been saying this all the time. If we are warming up as you say, then why does that graph claim we aren't warming up? Koko - long term trend showed that we have been warming up. We have been warming up since the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago, too. Again, the conundrum showed that CO2 continued up over the last 11 years but temperature did not. Where's the relationship? Got it? I certainly hope so.

Either you agree that we're having a global warming OR you deny it, it doesn't matter what causes it. If there's no global warming then who cares what causes it - after all, there's nothing to worry and we're safe, right? Koko - sighhhhhhhh. Read what I just wrote here and elsewhere, again. I never denied that global warming isn't happening. It is but what I challenge is the claim that increasing CO2 directly cause global warming. There is no basis to drum up fear over something that isn't true about CO2 as the primary driver for global warming. This is a natural thing that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. .

my comments are in red

 

[Hwy99]

trees do not produce pollution. neither oxygen nor CO2 is a pollution. and why would there be no trees? that's impossible unless it's 2012

You misunderstood, I never said that the tree produce the pollution. I stated if there are no trees, then there will be no way to produce the oxgyen. The pollution will take over the world faster if there are no trees. Trees produce the oxgyen.

 

[Jiro]

You misunderstood, I never said that the tree produce the pollution. I stated if there are no trees, then there will be no way to produce the oxgyen. The pollution will take over the world faster if there are no trees. Trees produce the oxgyen.

why would pollution take over the world faster if there are no tree? smog took over L.A. in no time even though there were trees. Yellow River was heavily polluted and STILL polluted even with trees around. the world is already polluted regardless of trees

yes tree produce oxygen but pollution is not dependent on availability of oxygen. In fact - with no tree and oxygen, there won't be wildfire!

 

[kokonut]

When I asked the question hypothetically, I was thinking by the total elimination of rain forests, wouldnt that increase the CO2 levels in the ozone to dangerous levels?

CO2 play no role on ozone thinning. It's a separate chemical process.

I'd be more worried about the micro and regional climate responses from a completely denuded rain forest over such a large landscape area rather than worry about CO2 levels. What kind of destruction are you talking about? How?

 

[Jiro]

Ozone Layer is designed to filter out a dangerous spectrum of sun ray entering Earth

CO2 is designed to serve as a blanket for Earth

these 2 are not dependent of each other nor do they affect each other

 

[Hwy99]

why would pollution take over the world faster if there are no tree? smog took over L.A. in no time even though there were trees. Yellow River was heavily polluted and STILL polluted even with trees around. the world is already polluted regardless of trees

It will be even worse if there are no trees.

yes tree produce oxygen but pollution is not dependent on availability of oxygen. In fact - with no tree and oxygen, there won't be wildfire!

Again, you misunderstood, I mean the forest can be gone complete by the wildfire. Plus, I never said that the pollution was depending on the oxgyen, if I say that something that depends on the oxgyen, then it would be us the humans.

 

[Hwy99]

Ozone Layer is designed to filter out a dangerous spectrum of sun ray entering Earth

CO2 is designed to serve as a blanket for Earth

these 2 are not dependent of each other nor do they affect each other

I thought the clouds that was made from water is the blanket of Earth?

 

[Jiro]

It will be even worse if there are no trees.

how and why?

Again, you misunderstood, I mean the forest can be gone complete by the wildfire. Plus, I never said that the pollution was depending on the oxgyen, if I say that something that depends on the oxgyen, then it would be us the humans.

No I did not misunderstand you. You are misunderstanding the science of pollution. You implied that pollution is dependent on tree (hence oxygen) because if trees are gone, then pollution would be worse. Humans are not largely dependent on trees for oxygen. Look at space shuttle and space station - "look ma! no trees! " We humans already have ways to obtain oxygen from other source beside trees.

That is what I'm trying to tell you - pollution does not get worsen because of no trees (and no oxygen).

 

[netrox]

Why does Kokonut reply in red ink? Is he trying to traumatize me by reminding me of my failures that I had when my teachers marked my papers with an F in red ink? LOL

 

[Hwy99]

how and why?

The trees feed us the oxgyen, not the cars.

No I did not misunderstand you. You are misunderstanding the science of pollution. You implied that pollution is dependent on tree (hence oxygen) because if trees are gone, then pollution would be worse.

When did I say that the "pollution depend on the oxgyen"?

The only reason why I am discussing about this is that I am fearing if there are no producer for oxygen, then we will not able to surivive.

Humans are not largely dependent on trees for oxygen. Look at space shuttle and space station - "look ma! no trees! " We humans already have ways to obtain oxygen from other source beside trees.

Where did they got the oxygen from? Trapping the air from the Earth inside and travel to the space just like the airplane, right?

That is what I'm trying to tell you - pollution does not get worsen because of no trees (and no oxygen).

You do not understand what I am trying to say, supposely if there are no trees, then there will still be cars, trains, airplanes, buildings, AC, and many others that only produce nothing but pollution.

 

[Jiro]

The trees feed us the oxgyen, not the cars.

right....

When did I say that the "pollution depend on the oxgyen"?

you implied that with no trees, pollution will get worse. I'm asking you how and why? I've already listed out examples of how our pollution is already worse EVEN WITH trees around.

The only reason why I am discussing about this is that I am fearing if there are no producer for oxygen, then we will not able to surivive.

reasonable concern but I've already told you that we already have technology to convert substance into oxygen and the humanity will not be wiped out if trees are gone.

Where did they got the oxygen from? Trapping the air from the Earth inside and travel to the space just like the airplane, right?

nope! from NASA site - "Making oxygen from water

Most people can survive only a couple of minutes without oxygen, and low concentrations of oxygen can cause fatigue and blackouts.

To ensure the safety of the crew, the ISS will have redundant supplies of that essential gas.

see caption"The primary source of oxygen will be water electrolysis, followed by O2 in a pressurized storage tank," said Jay Perry, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center working on the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) project. ECLSS engineers at Marshall, at the Johnson Space Center and elsewhere are developing, improving and testing primary life support systems for the ISS.

Most of the station's oxygen will come from a process called "electrolysis," which uses electricity from the ISS solar panels to split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.

Left: The ISS's first crew -- Bill Shepherd, Sergei Krikalev and Yuri Gidzenko -- aboard the Space Station. During their four-month stay, the crew will rely on the Station's hardware to provide breathable air.

Each molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Running a current through water causes these atoms to separate and recombine as gaseous hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2).

The oxygen that people breathe on Earth also comes from the splitting of water, but it's not a mechanical process. Plants, algae, cyanobacteria and phytoplankton all split water molecules as part of photosynthesis -- the process that converts sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into sugars for food. The hydrogen is used for making sugars, and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere.

see caption"Eventually, it would be great if we could use plants to (produce oxygen) for us," said Monsi Roman, chief microbiologist for the ECLSS project at MSFC. "The byproduct of plants doing this for us is food."

However, "the chemical-mechanical systems are much more compact, less labor intensive, and more reliable than a plant-based system," Perry noted. "A plant-based life support system design is presently at the basic research and demonstration stage of maturity and there are a myriad of challenges that must be overcome to make it viable."

Hydrogen that's leftover from splitting water will be vented into space, at least at first. NASA engineers have left room in the ECLSS hardware racks for a machine that combines the hydrogen with excess carbon dioxide from the air in a chemical reaction that produces water and methane. The water would help replace the water used to make oxygen, and the methane would be vented to space.

Right: The oxygen that humans and animals breathe on Earth is produced by plants and other photosynthetic organisms such as algae.

"We're looking to close the loop completely, where everything will be (re)used," Roman said. Various uses for the methane are being considered, including expelling it to help provide the thrust necessary to maintain the Space Station's orbit.

At present, "all of the venting that goes overboard is designed to be non-propulsive," Perry said.

The ISS will also have large tanks of compressed oxygen mounted on the outside of the airlock module. These tanks will be the primary supply of oxygen for the U.S. segment of the ISS until the main life support systems arrive with Node 3 in 2005. After that, the tanks will serve as a backup oxygen supply.

subscription image
Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
Last week, while the crew were waiting for activation of a water electrolysis machine on the Zvezda Service Module, they breathed oxygen from "perchlorate candles," which produce O2 via chemical reactions inside a metal canister.

"You've got a metallic canister with this material (perchlorate) packed inside it," Perry explained. "They shove this canister into a reactor and then pull an igniter pin. Once the reaction starts, it continues to burn until it's all used." Each canister releases enough oxygen for one person for one day.

"It's really the same technology that's used in commercial aircraft," he continued. "When the oxygen mask drops down, they say to yank on it, which actuates the igniter pin. That's why you have to give it a tug to begin the flow of oxygen."

did you know the astronauts get water from shower, breathing, and urination? we already have technology

You do not understand what I am trying to say, supposely if there are no trees, then there will still be cars, trains, airplanes, buildings, AC, and many others that only produce nothing but pollution.

I do understand you but you are not understanding me. I'm doing my best to explain. Again - if there are no trees, we simply adapt. We will live in underground, bubble, or whatever. Obviously - the world will be different for us but we will not be wiped out. If they can do it in space station, so can we.

 

[Jiro]

I thought the clouds that was made from water is the blanket of Earth?

clouds do serve as deflector and hydration for Earth

CO2 aka greenhouse gas is the blanket of Earth.

 

[Hwy99]

right....


you implied that with no trees, pollution will get worse. I'm asking you how and why? I've already listed out examples of how our pollution is already worse EVEN WITH trees around.

I already answered, if there are no producers that make the oxygen then we will only get the pollution in our technology.

reasonable concern but I've already told you that we already have technology to convert substance into oxygen and the humanity will not be wiped out if trees are gone.


nope! from NASA site - "Making oxygen from water

Most people can survive only a couple of minutes without oxygen, and low concentrations of oxygen can cause fatigue and blackouts.

To ensure the safety of the crew, the ISS will have redundant supplies of that essential gas.

see caption"The primary source of oxygen will be water electrolysis, followed by O2 in a pressurized storage tank," said Jay Perry, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center working on the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) project. ECLSS engineers at Marshall, at the Johnson Space Center and elsewhere are developing, improving and testing primary life support systems for the ISS.

Most of the station's oxygen will come from a process called "electrolysis," which uses electricity from the ISS solar panels to split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.

Left: The ISS's first crew -- Bill Shepherd, Sergei Krikalev and Yuri Gidzenko -- aboard the Space Station. During their four-month stay, the crew will rely on the Station's hardware to provide breathable air.

Each molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Running a current through water causes these atoms to separate and recombine as gaseous hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2).

The oxygen that people breathe on Earth also comes from the splitting of water, but it's not a mechanical process. Plants, algae, cyanobacteria and phytoplankton all split water molecules as part of photosynthesis -- the process that converts sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into sugars for food. The hydrogen is used for making sugars, and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere.

see caption"Eventually, it would be great if we could use plants to (produce oxygen) for us," said Monsi Roman, chief microbiologist for the ECLSS project at MSFC. "The byproduct of plants doing this for us is food."

However, "the chemical-mechanical systems are much more compact, less labor intensive, and more reliable than a plant-based system," Perry noted. "A plant-based life support system design is presently at the basic research and demonstration stage of maturity and there are a myriad of challenges that must be overcome to make it viable."

Hydrogen that's leftover from splitting water will be vented into space, at least at first. NASA engineers have left room in the ECLSS hardware racks for a machine that combines the hydrogen with excess carbon dioxide from the air in a chemical reaction that produces water and methane. The water would help replace the water used to make oxygen, and the methane would be vented to space.

Right: The oxygen that humans and animals breathe on Earth is produced by plants and other photosynthetic organisms such as algae.

"We're looking to close the loop completely, where everything will be (re)used," Roman said. Various uses for the methane are being considered, including expelling it to help provide the thrust necessary to maintain the Space Station's orbit.

At present, "all of the venting that goes overboard is designed to be non-propulsive," Perry said.

The ISS will also have large tanks of compressed oxygen mounted on the outside of the airlock module. These tanks will be the primary supply of oxygen for the U.S. segment of the ISS until the main life support systems arrive with Node 3 in 2005. After that, the tanks will serve as a backup oxygen supply.

subscription image
Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
Last week, while the crew were waiting for activation of a water electrolysis machine on the Zvezda Service Module, they breathed oxygen from "perchlorate candles," which produce O2 via chemical reactions inside a metal canister.

"You've got a metallic canister with this material (perchlorate) packed inside it," Perry explained. "They shove this canister into a reactor and then pull an igniter pin. Once the reaction starts, it continues to burn until it's all used." Each canister releases enough oxygen for one person for one day.

"It's really the same technology that's used in commercial aircraft," he continued. "When the oxygen mask drops down, they say to yank on it, which actuates the igniter pin. That's why you have to give it a tug to begin the flow of oxygen."

did you know the astronauts get water from shower, breathing, and urination? we already have technology

That is why we have to protect our nature. Water is part of it.

I do understand you but you are not understanding me. I'm doing my best to explain. Again - if there are no trees, we simply adapt. We will live in underground, bubble, or whatever. Obviously - the world will be different for us but we will not be wiped out. If they can do it in space station, so can we.

It would be a lot easier just to save our nature enviroments than building our own technology.

clouds do serve as deflector and hydration for Earth

CO2 aka greenhouse gas is the blanket of Earth.

I'd rather to have the clouds and rain as blanket than having CO2 as our blanket.

 

[kokonut]

clouds do serve as deflector and hydration for Earth

CO2 aka greenhouse gas is the blanket of Earth.

Actually it's water vapor and clouds that act as a blanket helping trap heat on the surface. This obvious if you have clouds hovering over a desert at night which helps keep the surface air warmer, without it all heat stored in the ground rapidly gets radiated back out into the air and the surface air gets cooled quickly as well. .

Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity these days as the critical greenhouse gas, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is minuscule compared to that of water vapor. Water vapor is present in such abundance throughout the atmosphere that it acts like a blanket of insulation around our world, trapping heat and forcing surface temperatures higher than they would be otherwise. At most wavelengths within the thermal infrared energy spectrum (basically heat) that get trapped within Earth’s atmosphere you barely even notice the effects of carbon dioxide because water vapor totally dominates the signal.

Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog : Feature Articles

Remember, approximately 3% of the atmosphere contain water vapor while only .038% of of the atmosphere contain CO2.

 

[Jiro]

Actually it's water vapor and clouds that act as a blanket helping trap heat on the surface. This obvious if you have clouds hovering over a desert at night which helps keep the surface air warmer, without it all heat stored in the ground rapidly gets radiated back out into the air and the surface air gets cooled quickly as well. .


Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog : Feature Articles

Remember, approximately 3% of the atmosphere contain water vapor while only .038% of of the atmosphere contain CO2.

hence serving as deflector. thanks for in-depth details though.

 

[Jiro]

I already answered, if there are no producers that make the oxygen then we will only get the pollution in our technology.

and I've already told you that our technology right now is already producing pollution. As long as there's oxygen - there is pollution. we have oil spill, factories, automobile emission, wildfire, chemical dumping, nuclear waste, etc.

That is why we have to protect our nature. Water is part of it.

I agree.

It would be a lot easier just to save our nature enviroments than building our own technology.

I agree.

I'd rather to have the clouds and rain as blanket than having CO2 as our blanket.

both are important

 

[sequoias]

Oh boy, still debating?

 

[kokonut]

Oh boy, still debating?

Oh yeah.

Oh, btw, Jiro. About oil spills? More oil is released naturally from the Earth each year than oil spills in the ocean from human errors and accidents.

The basics of earth science - Google Books

 

[Jiro]

Oh yeah.

Oh, btw, Jiro. About oil spills? More oil is released naturally from the Earth each year than oil spills in the ocean from human errors and accidents.

The basics of earth science - Google Books

big difference between natural release and accidental release. Accidental release of oil causes an immediate and devastating damage.