|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
October 19, 2004
Scott Lowther wrote: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor. Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect. CO2 is a *critical* trace gas, it doesn't usually evaporate, condense or solidify in and out of our atmosphere. Correct. It is converted into plants and oxygen. And too much of it poisons the air, especially when there are not enough plants to remove it. Even slightly too much of it causes warming of the Earth, especially if the sinks are saturated and the increase of it continues unabated. The climate changes from the resulting weather pattern changes. The weather becomes more unpredictable and weather fluctuations become more extreme. These changes are well documented, as are a plethora of other bad side effects of global warming. That is the subject of this thread, if you haven't noticed. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote:
And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break out a chainsaw and cut down some trees: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526 New trees cancel out air pollution cuts Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees. Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of history there have been so many more of them than there are now. ----------------------------- Martin Frey http//:www.hadastro.org.uk N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1 ----------------------------- |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Frey wrote: Scott Lowther wrote: And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break out a chainsaw and cut down some trees: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526 New trees cancel out air pollution cuts Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees. Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of history there have been so many more of them than there are now. Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Frey wrote:
Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of history there have been so many more of them than there are now. Smog formation requires both VOCs and NOx; NOx ia largely man made. It's been known since the 1980s (at least) that trees are a significant, even dominant, source of VOCs (weighted by reactivity) in some places (around Atlanta, for example). The implication of this is that pollution control measures should focus on NOx emissions from powerplants and engines rather than (just) VOC emissions. Unfortunately NOx is harder to control. Paul |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote:
Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up. I don't believe that's the case. The factoid that anti-greens like to present is that the US has more trees than 100 years ago, but that's because that was the low point after massive deforestation of the eastern US. Paul |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up. That seems quite unlikely. New England has more trees than it did during colonial times, but I'm sure that the US as a whole has been quite deforested relative to pre-Columbian times (though there is no shortage of trees here). |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
October 19, 2004
Scott Lowther wrote: Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up. It's not the quantity of trees, it's the quality and distribution. Read the article, it's certain trees and scrub brush which increase the VOCs. It's also the VOC distribution, I can't imagine that petroleum and solvent VOCs would be exactly the same as naturally and biologically emitted VOCs, or have the same physiological effect. Terpenes and isoprenes vs. chlorinated solvents? http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0502/et0502s10.html http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/strate...irquality.html "While it is important to be aware of VOC contributions from trees and vegetation, the air quality improvements gained from direct pollutant removal, reduced energy use and power plant emissions, slower rates of ground-level ozone formation from lower air temperatures, and other benefits generally outweigh the negative impact of biogenic emissions." Plants emit these things for a reason. You've got a brain, big guy, start using it. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Lowther" wrote in message ... Martin Frey wrote: Scott Lowther wrote: And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break out a chainsaw and cut down some trees: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526 New trees cancel out air pollution cuts Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees. Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of history there have been so many more of them than there are now. Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up. You need to be more careful who you believe, because that is totally false. It's one of Rush Limbaugh's more egregious lies. (Almost everything the right says about environmental issues is a lie.) |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
In sci.space.policy Scott Lowther wrote:
Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up. Its simply the latest installment of your utter bull****. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote in message ...
Martin Frey wrote: I don't think anybody denied poor=dirty. Scott Lowther was attempting to deny that rich=dirty by pretending that, in this context, CO2 is not dirty. Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor. Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect. snip Unfortunately fro that argument, water vapor is a source of positive feedback mechanism for any source of climate change. Anything tha tends to warm the atmosphere, warms the oceans, which in turn increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the grrenhouse effect. (Similarly anythiing that tends to cool the earth tends to decrease waater vapor which in turn decreases the greenhouse effect.) Estimates of the isolated effects of doubling CO2 (without including feedback) are small, 1K, the higher effects, 1K, that are most often reported are due to models that include feedback mechanisms. Much of the uncertainty in these estimate is due to the large uncertainties in some of these feedback mechanism, particularly clouds and vegetation, but also the detailed changes in water vapor amounts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|