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

Groups > sci.physics > #683901 > unrolled thread

True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#684031 — carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules

Quoting from Smithsonian

“...if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression,” Arrhenius wrote in what is now known as “the greenhouse law.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684057 — carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules

So this adventure for me began with wanting to know if big wild animals going extinct has repurcussions upon humanity which lead to oxygen to CO2 cycle, which lead to Global Warming, noticing a paradox in that CO2 is said to be linear. How could it be since it violates Least Energy Principle. Why would O2 separate and allow a C atom in the middle of O=O.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684064 — geometry is so important in physics and chemistry Re: carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:36:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So this adventure for me began with wanting to know if big wild animals going extinct has repurcussions upon humanity which lead to oxygen to CO2 cycle, which lead to Global Warming, noticing a paradox in that CO2 is said to be linear. How could it be since it violates Least Energy Principle. Why would O2 separate and allow a C atom in the middle of O=O.
> 

Alright, I am happy with this days full work, even had a chance to mow some grass, and install the air conditioner.

So much of Chemistry and physics for that matter, is geometry. So I well believe there are two different isomer forms of CO2, and we just have to wait for the experimental physicists and chemists to find these two different isomers. An important finding for probably the lives of large wild animals may depend on it. We could make a law that prohibits the killing of any large wild animal, and have a worldwide police force and paramilitary to go into any country where large wild animals are killed and kill the poachers.

So the angle of the bonded molecule is what determines whether it can absorb infrared radiation.

And further, why it can absorb is probably geometry again, in that we can say a molecule has a overall geometric interior shaped somewhat like a sphere, and a sphere with the radius that accommodated the wavelength of infrared. Much like the DeBroglie wavelength of atoms, that absorb photon energy and transit the monopole to a higher energy level. So the absorption and emittance of a monopole is the specifics of the radius of the sphere that is the atom, or in this case molecule.

P.S. And to think, when I was young, my father often accused me of procrastination, especially writing a English essay, putting it off to the last moment. Seems like we can grow out of procrastination. Part of being mature adult is no longer to procrastinate.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684146 — Re: carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:23:10 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Quoting from Smithsonian
> 
> “...if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression,” Arrhenius wrote in what is now known as “the greenhouse law.”

Arrhenius made a few wholly speculative assertions about CO2 in the atmosphere.  Now he is the poster boy of global warming whackomism.  

There is zero reproducible evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684153 — carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules

Alright it is interesting to go back and fix the Arrhenius theory of acid and base for it was discoveredin a time period pf JJ Thomson with his mistake that the .5MeV particle was the electron when it really was the Magnetic Monopole and the century of mistaken identity 2018 subtract 1897 is 121 years of mistaken identity and now that we know Real Electron is 105 Mev that seldom if ever leaves its proton. Means that ion theory of Arrhenius is really all about monopoles.

—quoting web—

 In 1884, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius proposed two specific classifications of compounds, termed acids and bases. When dissolved in an aqueous solution, certain ions were released into the solution. The Arrhenius definition of acid-base reactions is a development of the "hydrogen theory of acids".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684180 — monopoles drive Arrhenius ion theory, not electrons

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:08:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright it is interesting to go back and fix the Arrhenius theory of acid and base for it was discoveredin a time period pf JJ Thomson with his mistake that the .5MeV particle was the electron when it really was the Magnetic Monopole and the century of mistaken identity 2018 subtract 1897 is 121 years of mistaken identity and now that we know Real Electron is 105 Mev that seldom if ever leaves its proton. Means that ion theory of Arrhenius is really all about monopoles.
> 
> —quoting web—
> 
>  In 1884, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius proposed two specific classifications of compounds, termed acids and bases. When dissolved in an aqueous solution, certain ions were released into the solution. The Arrhenius definition of acid-base reactions is a development of the "hydrogen theory of acids".

Yes, well, ion theory of Old Chemistry has to be totally rewritten, for it is ludicrous to think that the Thomson electron can so easily take shelter on other atoms, other molecules. Ludicrous to think chemistry has these zillions upon zillions of .5MeV particles switching around, some atoms missing 4 even 5 or 6 .5MeVparticles and to think they are electrons.-- Ludicrous and shows the depth of how almost all scientists work under a 0 logical mind. Monopoles are what drives ion theory, not electrons.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684222 — Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view

That .5MeV was Dirac’s monopoles— not electrons

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684230 — Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view

Old Physics could never explain why some molecules were greenhouse gases while others were not.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684232 — Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:51:30 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Old Physics could never explain why some molecules were greenhouse gases while others were not.
> 
> AP

There is no such thing as a gas that traps heat.  Greenhouse effect is just marketing.  It isn't testable.  It isn't science. It's a way to keep the funds flowing.  It's just like string theory in that respect.  The public is confused and, therefore, easily fooled by anything that has the appearance of science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684250 — Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:51:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Old Physics could never explain why some molecules were greenhouse gases while others were not.
> 

This inability to explain why one gas and not another is a greenhouse gas did not seem to bother anyone in physics or chemistry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684277 — Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:55:49 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
 
> 
> This inability to explain why one gas and not another is a greenhouse gas did not seem to bother anyone in physics or chemistry.

Now I am not complaining about the fact that no-one realized a linear CO2 is a contradiction, a paradox, that you cannot unzip O2 bond and have the C atom sneek into the middle of O2, no, I am not complaining about that, but complaining that physics and chemistry could never predict what gas is a greenhouse gas and what are not. So they had no actual "theory".

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684297 — Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers

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.

The researchers discuss C3 and C4 plants and make the observation that C3 does better than C4 up to 15 years then the C4 had a better response. 

What this tells me is that neither C3 nor C4 were responding to the elevated fire produced CO2, but rather as seen in the picture the oft visits by humans visiting the land plots and expelling bio CO2 isomers (far different than fire CO2 isomers) was making one plot grow better for a time period.

What the experiment should have shown since CO2 fossil fuel burning is global is a undeniable surge in plant growth globally where we do not need scientists “teasing out a cm more growth in a plant and its neighbor”

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.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684302 — Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers

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."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684342 — Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers

Alright time for some history and blame game. Blame as to why no chemist or physicist experimented to see if animal CO2 was different from CO2 produced by fire? Why no-one had the logical intelligence to find out if CO2 came in two different isomers.

—quoting Wikipedia —

The properties of carbon dioxide were further studied in the 1750s by the Scottish physician Joseph Black. He found that limestone (calcium carbonate) could be heated or treated with acids to yield a gas he called "fixed air." He observed that the fixed air was denser than air and supported neither flame nor animal life. Black also found that when bubbled through limewater (a saturated aqueous solution of calcium hydroxide), it would precipitate calcium carbonate. He used this phenomenon to illustrate that carbon dioxide is produced by animal respiration and microbial fermentation. 

— end quote —

So let us use 1750 as start date for someone to have experimented with the two means of deriving CO2– via animals respiration or via fire.

Does there exist two isomers of CO2.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684353 — from Black in 1750, to AP in 2018, no scientist had the logical mind to see if CO2 comes in two different isomers

Between 1750 with Joseph Black's experiments on CO2, and 2018, someone should have been smart enough logically to test whether the CO2 produced by animals and the CO2 produced via fire (more energy involved) are the same molecule.

In the AP theory, the fire CO2 is far different than the bio CO2 formed in a less intense energy enviroment. This makes a whole lot of logical commonsense because CO is formed in a less energy fire CO2 environment. So the amount of energy in the environment during the production of CO2 is going to matter a whole lot.

The AP theory says that fire CO2 is a isomer that has a C atom in the z axis, whereas the bio CO2 has the C atom in the same xy plane as the O2 molecule. That difference causes plants to not utilize fire CO2.

So all the fossil fuel burning CO2 is unuseable by the majority of plants, perhaps unuseable by all plants. 

So, it is time now from 1750 to 2018 is a elapse of 268 years, way way too long a time for no-one on Earth to definitively tell us in an experiment on whether fire CO2 is the same as animal bio CO2. Are there two different isomers? Or are they the same.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684362 — Re: from Black in 1750, to AP in 2018, no scientist had the logical mind to see if CO2 comes in two different isomers

Now if I am correct, that fire CO2 cannot be utilized by plants, only the animal CO2 is useful to plants, then we should see that in a common everyday life experiment. We visit a nearby coal fired power station and observe if the plants that are surrounding the station are growing far far better than plants yonder of the station. We witness no such thing, for we see that the flora surrounding the station are the same if not worse than the flora yonder.

Now, because cities are a concentration of large animals-- humans-- we should see flora in cities to be better off than flora most elsewhere where there is no concentration of animals respiring and returning animal CO2 to the environment. So, we take a trip into a city of a forest park like Central park in New York City. Are the flora flourishing? By all accounts we can say the trees are flourishing in city settings because of animal CO2 so abundant. Even though there are CO2 emitting cars all over the place.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684424 — We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy

Alright as a fact, we know CO2 is the most dense of common gases, except for Ozone O3.

O3 ozone has a triangle geometry with 116.8 degree angle. It absorbs not infrared but rather ultraviolet light.

It has a molar mass of 48.00 g/m compared to CO2 at 44.01 g/m and water H2O at 18.01 g/m. The angle of H2O is 104.45 degrees

With that density, we can expect Ozone to be near the ground surface of Earth whenever it accumulates.

Now in the Earth's spin, during the winter months of the Northern Latitudes, since CO2 and O2 are dense gases, have they already made a sort of "Seasonal Exit" to the southern hemisphere, causing Spring in the South latitudes, and then being dense, the CO2 and O3 are now migrating back to the Northern latitudes? This is all conjecture, based on density facts.

So, is the dormancy of plants triggered not only by temperature, but by a volume migration in CO2. So that by Autumn and Winter, plants in the northern hemisphere just have not the supply of CO2 available that they need and wait until Spring, not only for warmer temperature, but waiting for their CO2 derived from animals, animal CO2 to get plentiful enough.

So, now, in the geophysical rotation of Earth on its axis a full year around the Sun, the density of CO2 and O3 being the most dense of common gases, do they become lopsided in supply when the North Hemisphere is having Spring and Summer and South Hemisphere is having Autumn Winter, and vice versa. So that animal CO2 switches poles as the Earth tilt in axis, flowing North and flowing South.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684430 — 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

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 4:42:56 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright as a fact, we know CO2 is the most dense of common gases, except for Ozone O3.
> 
> O3 ozone has a triangle geometry with 116.8 degree angle. It absorbs not infrared but rather ultraviolet light.
> 
> It has a molar mass of 48.00 g/m compared to CO2 at 44.01 g/m and water H2O at 18.01 g/m. The angle of H2O is 104.45 degrees
> 
> With that density, we can expect Ozone to be near the ground surface of Earth whenever it accumulates.
> 
> Now in the Earth's spin, during the winter months of the Northern Latitudes, since CO2 and O2 are dense gases, have they already made a sort of "Seasonal Exit" to the southern hemisphere, causing Spring in the South latitudes, and then being dense, the CO2 and O3 are now migrating back to the Northern latitudes? This is all conjecture, based on density facts.
> 
> So, is the dormancy of plants triggered not only by temperature, but by a volume migration in CO2. So that by Autumn and Winter, plants in the northern hemisphere just have not the supply of CO2 available that they need and wait until Spring, not only for warmer temperature, but waiting for their CO2 derived from animals, animal CO2 to get plentiful enough.
> 
> So, now, in the geophysical rotation of Earth on its axis a full year around the Sun, the density of CO2 and O3 being the most dense of common gases, do they become lopsided in supply when the North Hemisphere is having Spring and Summer and South Hemisphere is having Autumn Winter, and vice versa. So that animal CO2 switches poles as the Earth tilt in axis, flowing North and flowing South.
> 

The above is a mighty mighty big speculation, but really not so if one looks at the picture posed in Wikipedia of --"Carbon dioxide in Earth's troposphere" under the title Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, where we see the equator of low concentrations and yet the poles are high concentrations, depending on what month the pictures are take. Wikipedia shows the month of May 2011 where the CO2 is mostly in the North hemisphere then in October where most CO2 is now gathering in the Southern hemisphere.

So, my speculation is, that since ANIMAL CO2 is the only CO2 plants use to breathe, not the fire produced CO2 and that all CO2 is more dense than air, that CO2 yearly migrates between the poles. And that most plants require dormancy because there is not enough Animal CO2 available in winter.

Take a good close look at those Wikipedia photos.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684443 — 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

It makes sense that the most dense gases O3, CO2 migrate from pole to pole as the Earth revolves and spins in 1 year. And plants have two gauges to tell them when to go dormant— temperature & amount of CO2.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684463 — 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

It would be nice if we could tag a individual Animal CO2 molecule and a individual O3 molecule to see if it wonders between the 2 poles in a year time, taking 1/2 year for a transit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web