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.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Oh, I DID delve...deep
The thing is, I thought posting that website's name would be enough to point out what a RIDICULOUS source you used.
But I guess it isn't...
So let me make it even clearer why I believe your source is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE:
If you go to the "about" section, you can read up about the site's founder...his name is H. Leighton Steward. I strongly suggest you google that name and start reading, because it should be blatantly obvious why Mr Steward (who's served in MANAGEMENT and not any scientific roles) isn't a credible source. He's being paid by the oil and gas industry, the very same industry he tried to develop for years by accessing more oil and natural gas fields.
In short, I suggest you properly research your sources in the future
Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
Most 'conservatives' are just hard working white folks who don't believe personal morals are a national issue.
It does not mean they are evil corporate henchman.
Extremism on both sides is degrading any helpful debate.
Lefties are not uber callous citified intellectuals, nor are all righties racist, greedy a$$holes.
We must end the idea that our political affiliations are represented by the worst amongst us.
The middle ground gets things done, the rest is just childish name calling.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you kidding? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREAT! Plants LOVE it, and flourish! More plants= more oxygen production for us!
During the Carboniferous era, CO2 levels were so high (roughly 5 times what they are now) that the entire planet was rain forest - wouldn't have to worry about that pesky Amazon deforestation if the whole damn planet was rain forest!
The down side of that was that atmospheric O2 was much higher than it is now (35% as opposed to the current measly 21%), and because of all that extra oxygen, forest fires were endemic. Didn't take much to spark one off.
maybe we ought to put a cap-n-trade on oxygen producing stuff, too. that stuff is DANGEROUS!
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by nenothtu
You can't be that naive to think a guy who spent his life for the oil industry won't be biased when talking about oil-related issues
Common'...and to claim there's "science behind" Steward's website...laughable
Originally posted by Crapspackle
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you kidding? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREAT! Plants LOVE it, and flourish! More plants= more oxygen production for us!
Sorry but this is not true. Plants can only actually process so much CO2 and when that limit is exceeded, it stunts that plants ability to "breathe" in and out. Too much CO2 on plants suffocates them.
During the Carboniferous era, CO2 levels were so high (roughly 5 times what they are now) that the entire planet was rain forest - wouldn't have to worry about that pesky Amazon deforestation if the whole damn planet was rain forest!
Anything else that was different about the planet at that time? How about the plants themselves? You should look into it.
The down side of that was that atmospheric O2 was much higher than it is now (35% as opposed to the current measly 21%), and because of all that extra oxygen, forest fires were endemic. Didn't take much to spark one off.
maybe we ought to put a cap-n-trade on oxygen producing stuff, too. that stuff is DANGEROUS!
Sounds like you read a very interesting and very short article once.
When is the last time you saw any kind of produce being grown in 100% CO2 environmnent? Never you say? There is a good reason for that.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
oh my god doesnt matter what you want to call yourself liberal or "progressive"
taking a 2x4 to people who you disagree with yep alot of liberal "progressives" think like that.
that same old tune about the so called surplus that was stolen straight from social security.
your an ideolog doesnt matter what label you want to slap on yourself
over 100 million people are on the government dime that side destroys the very people the supposedly try to "save"
and if you really want to look at suicidaly stupid look at every policy you condone.
the current state of the union exists and yep yep sure nough you blame conservatives.
is all the hate for conservatives is that the majority of them doesnt need nor want and is even on the government dime unlike the liberal democratic progressive left of this country.
hate the right all you want feel free but the right finances all your "morality" in this country.
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
George Bush isn't stupid, in my opinion, you don't accidentally get Billions to fall into your pocket and steal a few elections by being a fool. He has some mental damage from Cocaine and Alcohol abuse, and that affects how he forms sentences -- however, I think he got Congress to do almost everything he wanted, while he PLAYED the fool. I'm sure that Dick Cheney's NSA spying didn't hurt. So in a sense -- it doesn't MATTER how smart or not he was -- he accomplished everything he set out to do; weaken the United States middle class and set us up for financial ruin while making Oil, Banking, and his friends who profit from war very very rich. His family, has been fans of fascism for some time.
That's one way of looking at it, but I think you're giving GWB way too much credit. He comes from a very powerful family. His father was president and what are the odds of a son of a president also becoming president? It completely defies the odds. That's a good indicator of a corrupt political system, especially when you look at GWB's background, which isn't exactly impressive.
IMO, GWB, like Reagan, was a puppet president for the neocon movement. Nothing more, nothing less.
IMO,
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by Crapspackle
Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you kidding? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREAT! Plants LOVE it, and flourish! More plants= more oxygen production for us!
Sorry but this is not true. Plants can only actually process so much CO2 and when that limit is exceeded, it stunts that plants ability to "breathe" in and out. Too much CO2 on plants suffocates them.
Perhaps you can tell us how much CO2 is "too much" in that context, then? I note that there can be "too much" oxygen as well, since both O2 and H2O are corrosives in large amounts... Evidently 5 times our current level is still not "too much" CO2.
....
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by TupacShakur
None of them are actually stupid - consider that they are at the top of US politics, and you can't get and stay there by being stupid. Not really stupid
the voters who put them there, OTOH.......them I despair of!!
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.
Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
George Bush isn't stupid, in my opinion, you don't accidentally get Billions to fall into your pocket and steal a few elections by being a fool. He has some mental damage from Cocaine and Alcohol abuse, and that affects how he forms sentences -- however, I think he got Congress to do almost everything he wanted, while he PLAYED the fool. I'm sure that Dick Cheney's NSA spying didn't hurt. So in a sense -- it doesn't MATTER how smart or not he was -- he accomplished everything he set out to do; weaken the United States middle class and set us up for financial ruin while making Oil, Banking, and his friends who profit from war very very rich. His family, has been fans of fascism for some time.
That's one way of looking at it, but I think you're giving GWB way too much credit. He comes from a very powerful family. His father was president and what are the odds of a son of a president also becoming president? It completely defies the odds. That's a good indicator of a corrupt political system, especially when you look at GWB's background, which isn't exactly impressive.
IMO, GWB, like Reagan, was a puppet president for the neocon movement. Nothing more, nothing less.
IMO,
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:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/21f18aa5afac.jpg[/atsimg]
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