Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #684302

Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers

Show all headers | View raw

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>In SCIENCE, 20 APR 2018 on pages 263 and 317 are two reports about plant 
>responses to increased fire produced CO2.

>The report is not good for those that think all that surplus CO2 produced
>from fossil fuel makes plants grow better. In fact the opposite is seen 
>-- the fire CO2 has no effect even hinders plant growth.

Ahh, this ought to become an interesting failure for Plutonium. C3 vs. C4
plants is right down my brother's alley. He's actively researching the
difference and why the two different types do better in different
environments. (and by "researching" I mean actual lab work, not babbling
on the net and then declaring a "discovery" to be true because he said
so). From what I remember at the moment, C4 plants do better in low CO2
concentrations, where the concentration isn't necessarily the environment
concentration but the concentration at the chlorophyll enzymes, which
includes the effect of harsh environments. C4 plants tend to be ones in
harsh environments. C3 plants have other advantages.


>The research that really needs conducting here is to make one glass bubble
>fully empty of all CO2 then place animal CO2 inside, another with only fire
>CO2. Then compare the growth between them. I predict the fire CO2 plants
>will die quickly. Only the animal CO2 plants will prosper.

Now you're catching on. That is what you should have done initially. Test
plants to see if there is a difference between "fire CO2" and "animal
CO2". But no, you have already proclaimed these molecules of CO2 have
different forms Because You Said So, so you declare the experimental
outcome ("only the animal CO2 plants will prosper") without ever doing the
experiment. In fact, you actually boast that you have proclaimed there
are different forms of CO2 molecules "without ever setting foot in a
research lab" and expect real scientists to be envious of that. How dumb 
and stupid is that, Al?

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is.  I mean rock-hard
stupid.  Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.  Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid.  Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.  Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.  
Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape.  Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.  Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid.  Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.  Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity.  Archie-poo is stooopid."

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:30 -0700
  Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 12:12 -0700
    does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 12:23 -0700
      does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:00 -0700
        does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:19 -0700
        Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:40 -0700
          Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:04 -0700
            bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:15 -0700
              Re: bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:30 -0700
                Re: bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-06 02:03 +0000
          Reason For Existence of the Chemical Bond-- grow new protons faster Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 22:00 -0700
            Density of CO2 makes it a more potent greenhouse gas Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 23:15 -0700
              One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 00:07 -0700
                One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:38 -0700
                One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:43 -0700
                Lewis with 6 not 8 & isomers of CO2 Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:53 -0700
                can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:08 -0700
                greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:22 -0700
                Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:30 -0700
                carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:12 -0700
                carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:23 -0700
                carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 19:36 -0700
                geometry is so important in physics and chemistry Re: carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 20:49 -0700
                Re: carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 11:18 -0700
                carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:08 -0700
                monopoles drive Arrhenius ion theory, not electrons Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:05 -0700
                Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:22 -0700
                Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:51 -0700
                Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 16:01 -0700
                Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 17:55 -0700
                Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 20:07 -0700
                Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:29 -0700
                Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-08 07:44 +0000
                Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:31 -0700
                from Black in 1750, to AP in 2018, no scientist had the logical mind to see if CO2 comes in two different isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:40 -0700
                Re: from Black in 1750, to AP in 2018, no scientist had the logical mind to see if CO2 comes in two different isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 10:22 -0700
                We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 14:42 -0700
                Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 15:19 -0700
                Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 16:26 -0700
                Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 18:12 -0700
                Re: Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 19:22 -0700
                Re: Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-09 03:18 +0000
                Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-08 23:51 +0000
                Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:55 -0700
                Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:22 -0700
                the isomers CO and CO2, it is the carbon that varies in position, not oxygen Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:53 -0700
                mass of atoms dictates which atoms move around in a bond// plants cannot utilize any fire produced CO2 Re: the isomers CO and CO2, it is the carbon that varies in position, not oxygen Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:11 -0700
  Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-18 23:57 +0000

csiph-web