It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking...the climate is going through a natural pattern....

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I get it and I appreciate you and greven taking the time to explain it. It's not complicated, it's just counter to the basic premise we were generally tought.

edit on 7-7-2018 by EbbNFlow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




CO2 (which is not turned into oxygen)


here you go with your strawman again

so typical



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: EbbNFlow
a reply to: Phage

I get it and I appreciate you and greven taking the time to explain it. It's not complicated, it's just counter to the basic premise we were generally taught.


no what he's doing is arguing a strawman saying that c02 is not turned into oxygen

its synthesized with water during the process of photosynthesis which involves both water and c02 with an oxygen by product yes plants synthesize c02 but it doesn't convert it into oxygen it's a by product of breaking the water down to create glucose

total bull#, christ
edit on 7-7-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're absolutely incorrect. The two products of photosynthesis are oxygen and glucose (C6H12O6)... without the CO2, there's no carbon to make the glucose and no oxygen will be produced. 6 carbon molecules bond with 6 water molecules to create glucose and leave behind 3 O2 molecules.

Molecular chemistry is difficult, I know.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage

You're absolutely incorrect. The two products of photosynthesis are oxygen and glucose (C6H12O6)... without the CO2, there's no carbon to make the glucose and no oxygen will be produced. 6 carbon molecules bond with 6 water molecules to create glucose and leave behind 3 O2 molecules.

Molecular chemistry is difficult, I know.


he's totally wrong read my post

he's arguing a strawman and proving himself correct

to me it looks insane



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Separate reactions. The splitting of water does not require CO2. It requires light and H20.


In the light reactions, the energy of light is used to "split water," stripping a pair of electrons from it (and causing the two hydrogens to be lost), thus generating molecular oxygen. The energy in light is transferred to these electrons, and is then used to generate adenosine triphosphate ( ATP ) and the electron carrier NADPH. These two products carry the energy and electrons generated in the light reactions to the stroma, where they are used by the dark reactions to synthesize sugars from CO2 .


Read more: www.biologyreference.com...

edit on 7/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



If this thread shows anything, it's the need for it's own thread discussing this. Turn everyone's $2 education into a $10. It is important to understand the basic processes of our environment and clearly lost on many.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: EbbNFlow
a reply to: Phage

I get it and I appreciate you and greven taking the time to explain it. It's not complicated, it's just counter to the basic premise we were generally taught.


no what he's doing is arguing a strawman saying that c02 is not turned into oxygen

its synthesized with water during the process of photosynthesis which involves both water and c02 with an oxygen by product yes plants synthesize c02 but it doesn't convert it into oxygen it's a by product of breaking the water down to create glucose

total bull#, christ

Oh?

Prove it. This should be easy.

What's the argument he is constructing a strawman against?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven




CO2 (which is not turned into oxygen)


^^^^



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

and yet O2 production rises as CO2 levels rise up to 220-230 PPM, at which point they level off and additional CO2 doesn't seem to increase O2 production levels.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
You're position isn't entirely wrong, but it also isn't entirely right. CO2 definitely plays a factor is oxygen production in plants, there's no other reason why its concentration would impact the plant's O2 production if it didn't play a role.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That would seem to make sense, more photosynthetic activity would require more water splitting (and more water).

But that article is about C3 plants (which like cool weather?). We're pretty well beyond 230 ppm though, and I read that abstract differently. It seems to say that O2 production depends both on CO2 levels and O2 levels?


Is there reason to be concerned about oxygen levels?

edit on 7/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




. CO2 definitely plays a factor is oxygen production in plants


of course it does why would the 2 part photosynthesis process be needed if the plant didn't need the glucose?

it's a by product of photosynthesis you can chop it down into 10000 tiny bits and pick it apart however you want



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I still get no answer when I ask what is the correct temperature Earth is supposed to be set at by some unseen force. I want science proven facts not WAGs. Where I sit right now in CT there was a mile thick glacier jet a few tens of thousands of years ago. There are fossils in the CT river banks of tropical plants (that like to collect) and dinosaur footprints. Is that jungle heat the correct temperature for CT?

How about we cut the ego as we aren't that important or influential on a planetary scale. Massive planet, at that, us specks of dust are on. How about we learn to adapt to any climate thrown at us?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Greven




CO2 (which is not turned into oxygen)


^^^^

You said that was the strawman.

What is the argument that strawman was constructed against?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny

How bout we try to don't screw up the climate?

edit on 7/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
I still get no answer when I ask what is the correct temperature Earth is supposed to be set at by some unseen force. I want science proven facts not WAGs. Where I sit right now in CT there was a mile thick glacier jet a few tens of thousands of years ago. There are fossils in the CT river banks of tropical plants (that like to collect) and dinosaur footprints. Is that jungle heat the correct temperature for CT?

How about we cut the ego as we aren't that important or influential on a planetary scale. Massive planet, at that, us specks of dust are on. How about we learn to adapt to any climate thrown at us?


there earth can easily adapt it just self selects plants that adapt to the new environment like it did during the Jurassic period

this entire conversation is complete bs when you really look at it from a larger perpspective

the earth has been WAY hotter with way way higher concentrations of c02 in PPM and life was thriving until a cataclysmic event screwed that all up, a few times

we're in fact in an ice age in an inter glacial period, look at the geological records of temperature, the climate is always in a constant state of flux

actually it looks a like like a CPU producing 1's and 0's in a sort of universal binary code, same thing with the sun



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Okay, let us not forget that CO2 and H2O are two entirely separate resources the plant combines (using other separate resources) to end up with the waste product of O2. Yes, oxygen is a plant's waste product, and we need that waste to survive.

toysforadults:

He's arguing a strawman [scenario]...


Nope. He's not. There is not an ounce of straw nor an effigy in any part of any of his posts. He is simply stating the facts, the full meaning of which escapes your comprehension faculty. It is okay to be embarrassed, just don't embarrass yourself further by trying to gain the upper-hand in your failed understanding.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I guess it’s whatever lie you have to tell yourself to get through the day. It’s weird watching rwnj’s grasping at any lie that agrees with their abject stupidity regarding science. If you think fossil fuels are Harmless go drink a Gallon of gas followed by a coal burger and get back to me. If you happen to survive that meal, go lock yourself in the garage with a running car overnight. I hear the buzz is awesome. So weird: The right wing puppet masters can convince these dim bulbs that an invisible cloud being controls everything, but the changes that can seen with their eyes and felt upon skin are lies. a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Ah of course..who cares. It's not our fault, lets keep on pumping crap into our atmosphere/ocean anyways.



posted on Jul, 17 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

yes, yorkshirelad , sorry for the delay on this response, I think you may be spot on in this discussion, human activity has certainly added extra CO2 to our atmosphere, without a doubt, I was not entirely clear on my post, my apologize, I am more worried about the effect beyond the natural cycles. I am thinking the warming trend that we seem to be seeing on our planet may be ..natural, .. but now enhanced ...enhanced..(not caused) by human activity, we may have tilted a natural cycle a bit. Add a bit more CO2, and wee begin to warm a bit, just enough to un-freeze all that gaseous CH4, in the frozen tundras of the north,and under the ocean, etc. Once it is released Methane is a far more deadly greenhouse gas. Just noodling thoughts here,




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join