Earth is running out of oxygen sooner than expected (nasa)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

[Anonymous]

Japan reports a million more deaths than births so there might be more air to go around

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Shhhh! Don't talk about science here. It will ruin the fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

And NASA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Well, the earth isn't running out of oxygen either. It's still here. You can't destroy it.

I was a chemistry major and extreme pedantry to the point of ridiculousness is tiresome and derailing.

The article referring to O2 as "oxygen". This isn't a remotely uncommon way of discussing oxygen. In a chem lab if you say you're using oxygen, they know you mean O2 not a random molecule that has an oxygen atom in it.

If we're playing the extreme pedantry game, yes, you can destroy an oxygen atom, you just need a particle accelerator.

Plants convert CO2 to O2 by photosynthesis.so they make elemental breathable oxygen from waste gases.

Ignoring the common meaning of words in context isn't helpful to science discourse and derails discussion. For instance we don't walk into a grocery store and think "organic" just refers to things with carbon compounds. Scientists code switch all the time.

So someone saying "Trees make oxygen" might not be scientifically illterate?

Maybe, maybe not. But it's true. If you think it's unclear, ask for clarification, don't lose your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well wonder if humans will be able to find a solution in a billion years. Maybe relocate some where else.

Humanity will be dead first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it NASA's attempt to make themselves relevant again?

lol no the head of NASA said this today
TV entertainer and inexplicably NASA interim administrator Sean Duffy wants to make the “moon a little brighter.”

Maga is the cult of stupidity

Cite your sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

And NASA.

NASA used to be a thing of inspiration 50 years ago. Now it's a complete joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

And NASA.

NASA used to be a thing of inspiration 50 years ago. Now it's a complete joke.

- and surprisingly, it was not t-rumps fault (though he has not helped)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

And NASA.

NASA used to be a thing of inspiration 50 years ago. Now it's a complete joke.

- and surprisingly, it was not t-rumps fault (though he has not helped)

Yeah NASA has been a dumpster fire for over 25 years or more now. No sense in putting good money into it until it's gutted and made old school again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should worry about their organizations end of life date. SpaceX is eating their lunch.

If NASA had the failure rate Spacex they'd all be fired. Oh wait, muskrat face and his merry group of weirdos already cost us a bajillion dollars firing people who are more productive than his group of idjits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

And NASA.

NASA used to be a thing of inspiration 50 years ago. Now it's a complete joke.

- and surprisingly, it was not t-rumps fault (though he has not helped)

Yeah NASA has been a dumpster fire for over 25 years or more now. No sense in putting good money into it until it's gutted and made old school again.

Bullsht. You don't have a clue what nasa does. It's not a joke, they do a lot of research you'd never understand little boy,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees make oxygen no?

Another Trump university grad has joined the chat



No, sweetie, trees do not “make oxygen”. Oxygen is an element. You cannot make it, except inside the core of a star.

Originally? Yes. But to suggest plants and trees aren’t actively replenishing or sustaining Earth’s oxygen levels via photosynthesis is a strange take.

As the article notes:

“Earth getting warmer will cause carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to break down, and so in these conditions the planet will struggle to grow as it requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. And if plants cannot survive, then we're in trouble, as it is Earth's main source of oxygen.”

"What's phytoplankton?"

Wow, NASA must be hiring from the shallow end of the gene pool or hiring some public education dropouts, or else that news person got that all mixed up, which is the most likely. Most news reporter personalities are really dumb.

Well... phytoplankton is a plant, but people like to talk about trees because it's more visual even though they contribute about 6% to the oxygen cycle.

Government education example. ^

The use photosynthesis so it's more a plant than an animal. It's really neither, but describing it as a plant is less wrong than calling it an animal. Do you also have trouble when people calm tomatoes a vegetable? Or a strawberry, a berry?

"Less wrong" Wow, 1/10 attempt at a saving face there.
Also, nobody but you called phytoplankton an animal.

And NASA.

NASA used to be a thing of inspiration 50 years ago. Now it's a complete joke.

- and surprisingly, it was not t-rumps fault (though he has not helped)

Yeah NASA has been a dumpster fire for over 25 years or more now. No sense in putting good money into it until it's gutted and made old school again.

Bullsht. You don't have a clue what nasa does. It's not a joke, they do a lot of research you'd never understand little boy,

Found the NASA neet living on the gravy train.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should worry about their organizations end of life date. SpaceX is eating their lunch.

If NASA had the failure rate Spacex they'd all be fired.

Hard to fail when they haven't even tried anything in decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should worry about their organizations end of life date. SpaceX is eating their lunch.

If NASA had the failure rate Spacex they'd all be fired.

Hard to fail when they haven't even tried anything in decades.

I believe we had a single launch of the SLS boondoggle. We used it to get rid of the existing reusable RS-25 rocket engines so we could contract for more.