Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record... - Page 13

**shel90** · 07-28-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

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 · 07-28-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

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 · 07-28-2009, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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** · 07-28-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

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** · 07-28-2009, 11:16 PM

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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.

Quote:

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

**Jiro** · 07-28-2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

It will be even worse if there are no trees.

how and why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:23 PM

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

how and why?

The trees feed us the oxgyen, not the cars.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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** · 07-28-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

The trees feed us the oxgyen, not the cars.

right....

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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** · 07-28-2009, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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 · 07-28-2009, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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. .

Quote:

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** · 07-29-2009, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

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** · 07-29-2009, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

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

both are important

**sequoias** · 07-29-2009, 12:15 AM

Oh boy, still debating?

kokonut · 07-29-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

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** · 07-29-2009, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

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.

Everglade85 · 07-29-2009, 12:32 AM

Most oil pollution comes from motor oil going down the drain and ships cleaning out their tanks. The oil spills are more dramatic so they get the news coverage.

**Jiro** · 07-29-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everglade85

Most oil pollution comes from ships cleaning out their tanks. The oil spills are more dramatic so they get the news coverage.

oil spill and cleaning oil tank.... I think we both know which one would cause more damage.

kokonut · 07-29-2009, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

oil spill and cleaning oil tank.... I think we both know which one would cause more damage.

No. Consider the size of the Earth. Consider the huge number of cracks where seepage of oil occurs all over the United States. Even off the coast of California oil seepage occurs daily in large amount.

Quote:

Joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades’ worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.

Likewise, during the July 15 edition of Fox News’ Special Report, correspondent William La Jeunesse stated: “Almost 40 years later [after the Santa Barbara spill], the National Academy of Sciences says mother nature spills more oil into the environment than Exxon, Shell, B.P., and Chevron combined — 63 percent of all oil in U.S. coastal waters comes from natural seepage from cracks in the earth; 32 percent from consumers in their boats and runoff from cities; 4 percent from oil tankers; and just 1 percent from offshore platforms.”

Environmentalists Say Yes to Offshore Drilling - WSJ.com

Hwy99 · 07-29-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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.

The oxygen are here before the pollution.

Quote:

I agree.

I agree.

both are important

By the way, thank you for sharing me the information about the NASA's technology, it's wonderful

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

Oh boy, still debating?

Yup sorry.

**Jiro** · 07-29-2009, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

No. Consider the size of the Earth. Consider the huge number of cracks where seepage of oil occurs all over the United States. Even off the coast of California oil seepage occurs daily in large amount.

Environmentalists Say Yes to Offshore Drilling - WSJ.com

Natural Release is not concentrated on one area and it is spread out. Accidental Release is concentrated on one specific area... which is why it's very destructive.

**Jiro** · 07-29-2009, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

The oxygen are here before the pollution.

yes oxygen is here before, during, and after pollution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

By the way, thank you for sharing me the information about the NASA's technology, it's wonderful

that's why I'm not concerned. I've said in old thread that humans are a very extremely adaptive and resilient species.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

Yup sorry.

Hwy99 · 07-29-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yes oxygen is here before, during, and after pollution.

that's why I'm not concerned. I've said in old thread that humans are a very extremely adaptive and resilient species.

That's almost the same as what I told you in this thread that the human are very unique specie

Quote:

**Jiro** · 07-29-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuyoPiyo

That's almost the same as what I told you in this thread that the human are very unique specie

that's why we are not going to get wiped out if trees are gone but yes like what you said - we have to do our best to protect our nature and it's preferable that we breathe oxygen from trees instead of machine

Hwy99 · 07-29-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's why we are not going to get wiped out if trees are gone but yes like what you said - we have to do our best to protect our nature and it's preferable that we breathe oxygen from trees instead of machine

Of course

kokonut · 07-29-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Natural Release is not concentrated on one area and it is spread out. Accidental Release is concentrated on one specific area... which is why it's very destructive.

Again, I point to oil seepage off the coast of California well known for it's oil to wash ashore on a regular basis.

About 50 to 70 barrels of oil is seeped out everyday (365 times 50 = 18,250 barrels of oil in one year, which is 9 times as much oil and fuels spilled by the oil industry. This is just from one oil seep.
Natural Oil Seepage at Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara, California -- Allen et al. 170 (3961): 974 -- Science

In 2007, the oil industry spilled 2,256 barrels of oil, fuels and chemicals, into the oceans off America’s coasts (every year). Even though natural oil seepage rates are much higher, an estimated 1,700 barrels per day off the coast of North America, Californians are still leery of another Santa Barbara.
Offshore drilling safer, but small spills routine | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

1700 barrels per day times 365 = 620,500 barrels of oil a year from natural oil seepage from the depths of our ocean.

07-28-2009, 11:16 PM	#366 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 61,221	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 __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-28-2009, 11:23 PM	#370 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	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

07-29-2009, 12:15 AM	#378 (permalink)
sequoias Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Iowa, wind generation capital Posts: 21,947	Oh boy, still debating?

07-29-2009, 12:32 AM	#381 (permalink)
Everglade85 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Sac-town Posts: 122	Most oil pollution comes from motor oil going down the drain and ships cleaning out their tanks. The oil spills are more dramatic so they get the news coverage.