Who is stupider: Palin, Bush, or Bachmann?

page: 18
22
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crapspackle
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Actually you seem far more uninformed than you suggest I suggested. I actually asked you why you had to use extinct plants to make your point. Apparently you do not understand why you need to do that.

Sorry but your claim there can not be too much CO2 for plants is absurd. There is a very good reason you are going back to plants that no longer exist.


Actually, I made no such claim. I distinctly recall asking you how much CO2 was "too much". Be that as it may, such a claim is no more absurd than postulating plant growth in an unnatural "100% CO2 environment" when no such thing exists on Earth, nor ever has.




Still, when carbon dioxide level are too high, the greenhouse gas causes the pores (stomata) that the leaf transpires through to shrink, and thus not to release its normal water amounts. A study performed by scientists from the Carnegie Institute for Science shows that more than a quarter of the warming from increased CO2 levels in some areas of the world is due to this effect.


too much CO2

Symptoms of too much CO2 in greenhouse
I live in the year 2011 with the plants that exist now. Your place sounds awesome.


The idea that there can be "too much" of anything, CO2 included, was never under debate. The issue is HOW MUCH is too much.

Not quite sure why you keep carrying on about "extinct" plants. The particular species are extinct, but the genera are not (other than the seed ferns). Lycopods, ferns, and horsetails are all with us to this day, and doing fairly well, although they are not doing quite as well as formerly, since CO2 levels have dropped far enough to stunt their growth.




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Funny quotes...but I wouldn't rate them as "grave" as Bachmann's given that she did it in public making ridiculously false claims (misleading her followers) while Biden gave a personal opinion to 1 single person. And his opinion wasn't even a lie. For some people, a train arriving 1hr late isn't all that bad, and for some people the HCB was a "f****** big deal". It's an OPINION...not a false claim
I completely agree, casually dropping a few F-bombs can't really compare to making blatantly false statements time and time again.

Plus when he opens his mouth, Joe Biden is right more than he is wrong, while Michele Bachmann is right only a tiny fraction of the time.

(Also thanks to whoever posted the politifact link earlier, this website is legit)
edit on 27-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Who is the most stupid??? There's no such word as stupider. The grammar police have spoken. Carry on.
edit on 27-7-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
So, clear evidence that in at least one state; the vote was flipped. Kerry won in Ohio and the nation by at least 3% -- if you assume ONLY one abuse. But we know that there were many other states with voters in Liberal blocks being removed en masse for spurious reasons and electronic vote switching that would switch Kerry and Bush if the votes went to far the "wrong way."


I actually saw a documentary about the 2004 election (I'm sure many on here have seen it) and it pretty much confirms what a lot of people already suspected. Pretty disturbing stuff. The real disturbing thing, though, is how things like this happen now and there are no repercussions at all. Instead we get the Tea Party.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Pretty picture of plants that do not exist. I actuall grow real plants for real in the real world.


In the real "real world" or in a climate controlled greenhouse? So far your posts have leaned heavily towards a greenhouse hypothesis.



How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?

How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?
Experiments have shown that plants can handle up to 10,000 PPM of CO2 with no ill effects. At very high light densities, indoor plants have a maximum CO2 uptake of just over 2,000 PPM.

Light intensity increases with closer distance, so the CO2 level around plants needs to be increased respectively:

Lights Distances CO2 Needed for
from Plants Sugar Production
HID Lamps 4ft (120 cm) * Ambient
3 ft (90 cm) 400 PPM
2ft (60 cm) 1,000 PPM
1 ft (30 cm) 2,000 PPM

This is with maintaining all plant resources at MAXIMUM and at a temperature NOT EXCEEDING 30°C (86°F).
* Ambient CO2 in the cities is between 400-500 PPM.
* Ambient CO2 in the country is about 300 PPM.

Note: Any time your indoor garden temperature goes above 30°C (86°F), start shutting down the CO2



Again, we seem to be dealing with controlled environments, but I do appreciate that you've at least finally taken a stand as to how much CO2 is "too much". From what you've quoted, it appears you believe 10,000 ppm to be the threshold at which plants can "handler CO2 with no ill effects"

10,000 ppm. I further not that your source gives a current range of CO2 concentration of 400-500ppm (urban) to 300ppm (rural). NOAA gives the current concentration, averaged out, as 393.69ppm as of June, 2011 ( source ), which is well within the range you give, and in agreement with it.

10,000 ppm is more than 25 times the current concentrations, and is in fact greater than the concentration has ever been since the advent of life on Earth. I seriously doubt we'll see that any time soon, or ever, making it a non-issue. A smoke screen.

During the Carboniferous period, which I brought up and you appear to take issue with, concentrations were around 1800 ppm, roughly 4.6 times current concentration. A far cry from 25X.

Argumentum ad absurtium. A good phrase to familiarize oneself with.

In fact, the success of the rainforests of the time due to high CO2 levels also led to their eventual collapse and demise. They pulled out enough of the atmospheric carbon (creating our coal beds) that CO2 levels dropped to current levels. leading to rain forest collapse and the desertification of the Permian era.


I could make an argument for the dangers inherent in the current low CO2 levels, but I won't go there. Wouldn't want to send you into apoplexy.



When you pump too much CO2, you have to so completely over respond with drastic temperature and light shifts just to come to what turns out to have been a vain attempt to grow a super plant now in the form of a shriveled and oddly stunted little dead end.


But see, we are here again talking about a greenhouse environment, in which the variables are independently controlled to create an unnatural state, found nowhere in nature. The very fact that you even mention an ability to adjust light and temperature (humidity would probably factor in as well, eh?) shows that. It has no bearing in a planetary context, unless you can also control all of the independent variable planet-wide and independently. In biomes in nature, the variable tend to be rather more interdependent. For example, humidity tends to increase naturally with temperature and CO2, aridity tends to increase with temperature and low CO2.



I do wish I had your 3D artistic talents though. Unless you just used VUE or something that is very impressive.


I used Terragen for the render. Most of the "art", if that's what it is, is dependent on manipulation of the 3d models, composition, and setting the lighting and atmospheric variables. I've tried VUE, but it was overly complex without a concurrent increase in control of the scene.



Look, the only "scientists" that say plants can handle endless supplies of CO2 in the atmospher work for the energy company. None of them happen to be farmers, botanists, or you know, people in the "plant" industry.


I would not trust any scientist who postulated that plants could endure endless anything. Plants need water, too, yet they can drown just as easily as you or I - more so, since they are sedentary, and can't escape. Likewise, I wouldn't want to try to survive in a pure O2 atmosphere. The fact remains that the tolerances aren't quite as tight as some would have us believe, and even then depend on other variables. When I look through the science of it, I look for results, and how well the model fits observation, not the political leanings of the scientist, whichever way he may lean. It seems that this debate is pretty polarizing, and it seems awfully hard for scientists to keep their politics out of the equation. It falls then to us to look at the science, and make up our own minds based upon the findings, rather than the politics.

But then, political dabbling in science is what got us into this current discussion, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shushu
Who is the most stupid??? There's no such word as stupider. The grammar police have spoken. Carry on.
edit on 27-7-2011 by shushu because: (no reason given)


Wow! I hope you're not a real cop. This was addressed in the 2nd post of the thread, 3 days and 18 pages ago. You're just a little late, hero.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by fooks
 


I've actually researched it fairly extensively over time, and am currently engaged in a reconstruction of a Carboniferous forest. Here's a detail from a preliminary reconstruction I did:




Pretty picture of plants that do not exist. I actuall grow real plants for real in the real world.

How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?

How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?
Experiments have shown that plants can handle up to 10,000 PPM of CO2 with no ill effects. At very high light densities, indoor plants have a maximum CO2 uptake of just over 2,000 PPM.

Light intensity increases with closer distance, so the CO2 level around plants needs to be increased respectively:

Lights Distances CO2 Needed for
from Plants Sugar Production
HID Lamps 4ft (120 cm) * Ambient
3 ft (90 cm) 400 PPM
2ft (60 cm) 1,000 PPM
1 ft (30 cm) 2,000 PPM

This is with maintaining all plant resources at MAXIMUM and at a temperature NOT EXCEEDING 30°C (86°F).
* Ambient CO2 in the cities is between 400-500 PPM.
* Ambient CO2 in the country is about 300 PPM.

Note: Any time your indoor garden temperature goes above 30°C (86°F), start shutting down the CO2


When you pump too much CO2, you have to so completely over respond with drastic temperature and light shifts just to come to what turns out to have been a vain attempt to grow a super plant now in the form of a shriveled and oddly stunted little dead end.

I do wish I had your 3D artistic talents though. Unless you just used VUE or something that is very impressive.
Look, the only "scientists" that say plants can handle endless supplies of CO2 in the atmospher work for the energy company. None of them happen to be farmers, botanists, or you know, people in the "plant" industry.
edit on 27-7-2011 by Crapspackle because: (no reason given)


I must say, I know a green thumb when I read ones writing
...I'm in the "plant" industry too. Just too add, if you ever get those pesky spider mites 1500 PPM or more will smother and wipe them out and should be done when the lights are out. Just food for thought


Back on topic, all the currently elected officials in the white house, senate and congress are stupid. I don't like this system, it sucks, stinks to high heaven and has to be restructured. As for the three mentioned by the OP, they're all stupid and so are we for electing them! But as I stated in an earlier post somewhere, get rid of the electoral votes and maybe we have a chance to elect who we truly want in office.

That is all
edit on 8/11/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join