LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDon't blame me if this is found to be untrue.
I heard that there is going to be intense solar wind occurrences soon and that the pollution we have created could shield us from them.
Personally I think this seems quite odd but what do you think?
April 2nd, 2008, 07:51 PM
Don't blame me if this is found to be untrue.
I heard that there is going to be intense solar wind occurrences soon and that the pollution we have created could shield us from them.
Personally I think this seems quite odd but what do you think?
April 2nd, 2008, 08:07 PM
sources?Originally Posted by Skiyk
Don't blame me if this is found to be untrue.
I heard that there is going to be intense solar wind occurrences soon and that the pollution we have created could shield us from them.
Personally I think this seems quite odd but what do you think?
If its true, then it would unreveal the true beauty of nature.
April 2nd, 2008, 08:38 PM
Well, we're at the very bottom of the sunspot cycle, which tends to be when we get the fastest steady solar winds.Don't blame me if this is found to be untrue.
I heard that there is going to be intense solar wind occurrences soon and that the pollution we have created could shield us from them.
Personally I think this seems quite odd but what do you think?
By intense, you might be thinking of Coronal mass ejections (CMEs). They tend to happen at the peak of sunspot cycles and create geomagnetic storms which can play heck on our communications satellites etc. The next sunspot cycle, which is predicted to be quite intense, peaks about 2012 or so.
Yes, my source happened to be my science teacher so that's where the "don't blame me" came in.
That is the basis of the 2012 apocalypse.
Apocalypse? We're gonna die? :P
Seriously, how much damage can these CME's do at maximum? Whipe out satellite communication temporarily, or can it go further?
Nature is wonderfully complex, it's always possible that something bad has it's (temporary) advantages.
I also heard that air pollution, at least in the form of Co2, can actually make plants grow faster. Seems like the future will be wet, hot and green.
Well that's the way scientists want it, eh?
Better than dry, desolate and arid.
That is true, C02 is a limiting factor in plant growth. So an increase in atmospheric C02 creates a boost in plant growth. This can be a double edge thought, true that it can create a wet, hot and green future...but also, the oceans absorb huge concentrations of C02. Algae, in the ocean is another plant and requires C02 for growth, but this one can quickly multiply and turn a region of the ocean or a closed body of water into a dead zone. Since they multiply so rapidly they can't be eaten by the local fish population at the rate they grow, so they feed on all the nutrients, steal the oxygen of the water and leave the area a green barren slop...I also heard that air pollution, at least in the form of Co2, can actually make plants grow faster
On the concept of CME's, are those in the same category as solar flares? If so, solar flares are possible causes of some of the past mass extinction. Their massive quantity of radiation can kill most life on a planet, certainly ours since we are quite close to the sun.
In photosynthesis plants take in CO2 and H2O to make their food, glucose. The future won't be to green, we usually destroy plants.Apocalypse? We're gonna die? :P
Seriously, how much damage can these CME's do at maximum? Whipe out satellite communication temporarily, or can it go further?
Nature is wonderfully complex, it's always possible that something bad has it's (temporary) advantages.
I also heard that air pollution, at least in the form of Co2, can actually make plants grow faster. Seems like the future will be wet, hot and green.
I saw on the NASA channel that recently there had been a lot of solar wing released, a large amount of anything in the atmosphere should protect us from that, because the radiation has to get through the gases in the atmosphere to get to us. A good example of the atmosphere stopping solar radiation from getting to us is aura borealis.
Alge would multiply, but that would allow what is next in the food chain to multiply as well. There would still be plenty of oxygen because many photosynthetic oxygen producers (plankton?) live in the ocean and use CO2 and produce O2.
This will really be great,but i think we have to work on developing and sustaining our environment to fight aganstpollution
June 6th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Hi good day
Hi everyone this forum is talk about science. According to my teacher before that earth made by God but we all know that already. Therefore we should care our surroundings especially to the pollution. Besides peoples do the things that make pollution because of there wheels and etc. We can prevent this from the pollution we should not abuse it.
___________________________________________
Anna Ford
Problem With Drugs or Alcohol? This Drug Rehab has Helped Thousands of Individuals to Recover.
http://www.drugrehabcenter.com
I just found this on one of the sites I'm subscribed to. Several scientists think they have found a way to deal with air born pollutants using duckweed. http://www.physorg.com/news134744950.html. Though in the article it also says Duckweed reduces algae. I recall reading, not that long ago, that several scientists were considering using vast amounts of algae to combat global warming and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (Though the article also said that it would cause several other pollutants as well.).
I'm wary of duckweed. It short circuits pond life by blanketing the surface and blocking light. It puts oxygen into the air not the water. Fish gulp it but spit the tough little floaters out... repeat repeat repeat. The individual weeds have a long lifespan too. So what you get is this volume of dead water with nothing really happening beneath the surface... just waterfowl and their poop.
Good thing ducks mow it so effectively.
If we want duckweed on a vast scale we'll have to mow the ducks.
***
How about kelp? If we're talking "vast" salt not fresh is the way to go. Kelp fronds are mostly submerged so they don't snuff ecology like true floaters. We can promote kelp, fairly cheaply, without culling some other species. Because kelp requires anchorage but much seabed offers just mud and sand, an artificial kelp forest is simply wide mesh net or even rubble. Kelp forests harbour reef-like diversity and even shelter calving humpbacks. There's a lot more going on.
July 8th, 2008, 06:04 PM
Three cheers for being typical and ignorant!
Then what would we use to make shushi?
Algae can also be grown in the desert in a controlled way, and can potentially be fed on CO2 from power plant exhaust gas, and sunlight. The algae produce glycerol which can be converted to hydrogen by reforming, with the CO2 by-product being recycled to feed the algae again.Algae, in the ocean is another plant and requires C02 for growth, but this one can quickly multiply and turn a region of the ocean or a closed body of water into a dead zone. Since they multiply so rapidly they can't be eaten by the local fish population at the rate they grow, so they feed on all the nutrients, steal the oxygen of the water and leave the area a green barren slop..
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...research-pact/Some recent calculations suggest that if 20 percent of the Mohave Desert were converted to algae production, it could supply all the gasoline consumed in the United States, he said.
The nori used for sushi wrappers is a lettuce-like algae cultivated at the surface. The most edible kelp, wakame, is grown on deeper lines as it is vertical. Wakame has become a problem weed of waters beyond its historic range, especially New Zealand. "Problem" to sport fishers and small boat propellers, that is. *Sigh* Priorities?
Then what would we use to make shushi?
CO2 is associated with global warming. On the other hand duckweed is associated with gettign rid of some other kinds of chemicals that are produced through pollution. I don't think that an abundance of algae would have the same effect as duckweed.
Duckweed grabs toxins better than kelp? How?
Even so, I still have this problem with duckweed that we just can't get any useful mass of it. Take a square cm of sunlit water surface: with submerged algae we have the water below clogged down a meter or more (far more with kelp); with duckweed we have, like, five puny plants coating that surface. Duckweed is structured so that numbers of plants interlock and effectively deprive all below of sunlight. The leaves also reflect much light back at the sky. This is area vs. volume.
I'm not admitting to be very knowledgeable on this subject. However after doing soem reasearch on the subject I found:Duckweed grabs toxins better than kelp? How?
Even so, I still have this problem with duckweed that we just can't get any useful mass of it. Take a square cm of sunlit water surface: with submerged algae we have the water below clogged down a meter or more (far more with kelp); with duckweed we have, like, five puny plants coating that surface. Duckweed is structured so that numbers of plants interlock and effectively deprive all below of sunlight. The leaves also reflect much light back at the sky. This is area vs. volume.
According to the researchers, duckweed plants can extract nitrogen and phosphate pollutants from agricultural and municipal wastewater. They can reduce algae growth, coliform bacterial counts and mosquito larvae on ponds, while concentrating heavy metals, capturing or degrading toxic chemicals, and encourage the growth of other aquatic animals such as frogs and fowl. These plants produce biomass faster than any other flowering plant, serve as high-protein feed for domestic animals and show clear potential as an alternative for biofuel production.
Kelp can only survive in shallow, clear ocean water under 20C while duckweed grows in stilled waters such as lakes and pools. After the duckweed is used it is dried out so the toxins are released and sold to pig farmers for feed. Duckweed is being used in different types of environments than kelp would be used.
Well that's true we can't grow kelp on toxic waste ponds. Duckweed is just perfect there.
If we want "vast" to "combat global warming and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere" I don't know what % of Earth must be covered in ponds before duckweed makes any difference. "Clear ocean water under 20C" is a pretty large area though.
We promote kelp by providing it anchorage. In deep waters this is horizontal lines floated/weighted to some depth. I'm thinking that since kelp, once established, provides its own flotation and ballast, we might only need to hold a neutral buoyancy web in place some years before it's self sustaining... kinda like Sargasso Sea. We could use old drift nets (which are gill nets, wide mesh) for this. Driftnets several miles long are not unusual. There are many abandoned nets in international waters, waiting for some UN body to pick them up. "Vast" may not require a lot of funding or new technology on our part.
| « Strange sky anomaly? | Could the Earth be like????? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
