Red wrote:

On Dec 21, 6:49 pm, "Ryan P."
wrote:


ecarecar wrote:


The CO2 then broke down??


How did that happen?


.
.
Photosynthesis is one good example.



Correct. Plants intake CO2, absorb the carbon, and exhale the
oxygen.
The very warm weather produced an abundance of plant life, with few
animals in the food chain to eat them. The bigger the plants grew,
the more photosynthesis for conversion of CO2 to O.


That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split into
hydrogen and oxygen. (Ref. any college - or probably high school - biology
book)

On Dec 23, 9:13*pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"ecarecar" wrote in message



That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split into
hydrogen and oxygen. *(Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)

Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.


Not sure from your comment which one of us you think is stupid, but
your link points to ecarecar.

Quoted from your referenced link:

The Carbon Cycle
Plants may be viewed as carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE and oceans by fixing it into organic chemicals.

two steps in the photosynthesis process:
In the Light Independent Process, carbon dioxide FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
(or water for aquatic/marine organisms) is captured and modified by
the addition of Hydrogen to form carbohydrates

The raw materials of photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide, enter
the cells of the leaf, and the products of photosynthesis, sugar AND
OXYGEN, leave the leaf.

Carbon dioxide cannot pass through the protective waxy layer covering
the leaf (cuticle), but it can enter the leaf through an opening (the
stoma) flanked by two guard cells. Likewise, OXYGEN PRODUCED BY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS can only pass out of the leaf through the opened
stomata.

Red

"ecarecar" wrote in message
et...
Red wrote:

On Dec 21, 6:49 pm, "Ryan P."
wrote:

ecarecar wrote:

The CO2 then broke down??

How did that happen?

.
.
Photosynthesis is one good example.


Correct. Plants intake CO2, absorb the carbon, and exhale the
oxygen.
The very warm weather produced an abundance of plant life, with few
animals in the food chain to eat them. The bigger the plants grew,
the more photosynthesis for conversion of CO2 to O.

That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split into
hydrogen and oxygen. (Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)

Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.

Steve

Red wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:13 pm, "SteveB" wrote:


"ecarecar" wrote in message






That is wrong; it is NOT correct.


The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split into
hydrogen and oxygen. (Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)


Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.




Not sure from your comment which one of us you think is stupid, but
your link points to ecarecar.

Quoted from your referenced link:

The Carbon Cycle
Plants may be viewed as carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE and oceans by fixing it into organic chemicals.

two steps in the photosynthesis process:
In the Light Independent Process, carbon dioxide FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
(or water for aquatic/marine organisms) is captured and modified by
the addition of Hydrogen to form carbohydrates

The raw materials of photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide, enter
the cells of the leaf, and the products of photosynthesis, sugar AND
OXYGEN, leave the leaf.

Carbon dioxide cannot pass through the protective waxy layer covering
the leaf (cuticle), but it can enter the leaf through an opening (the
stoma) flanked by two guard cells. Likewise, OXYGEN PRODUCED BY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS can only pass out of the leaf through the opened
stomata.

Red



The discussion seems to have been edited somewhat. Perhaps some learning
has been imparted. Learning is good.

But, on to the important part of the discussion, clearly, it is ecarecar
who is
the smart one.

As Red has pointed out, carbon dioxide is "captured and modified." The
oxygen
product of photosynthesis does not come from carbon dioxide but, rather,
from
water where hydrogen is separated from oxygen.

"Red" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:13 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"ecarecar" wrote in message



That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split
into
hydrogen and oxygen. (Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)

Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.


Not sure from your comment which one of us you think is stupid, but
your link points to ecarecar.

Quoted from your referenced link:

The Carbon Cycle
Plants may be viewed as carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE and oceans by fixing it into organic chemicals.

two steps in the photosynthesis process:
In the Light Independent Process, carbon dioxide FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
(or water for aquatic/marine organisms) is captured and modified by
the addition of Hydrogen to form carbohydrates

The raw materials of photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide, enter
the cells of the leaf, and the products of photosynthesis, sugar AND
OXYGEN, leave the leaf.

Carbon dioxide cannot pass through the protective waxy layer covering
the leaf (cuticle), but it can enter the leaf through an opening (the
stoma) flanked by two guard cells. Likewise, OXYGEN PRODUCED BY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS can only pass out of the leaf through the opened
stomata.

Red

the thread went something like:

plants take in CO2 and put out Oxygen .............

no it doesn't ................

yes, it does ................

no it doesn't ............

you're an idiot ..............

no, you're an idiot ...............

So, I just looked it up in Google, and the formula I saw definitely showed
C)2 + XXXX = O2 + XXXX

Steve

On Dec 24, 8:08*am, ecarecar wrote:
Red wrote:
On Dec 23, 9:13 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

"ecarecar" wrote in message

That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split into
hydrogen and oxygen. *(Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)

Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.

Not sure from your comment which one of us you think is stupid, but
your link points to ecarecar.

Quoted from your referenced link:

The Carbon Cycle
Plants may be viewed as carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE and oceans by fixing it into organic chemicals.

two steps in the photosynthesis process:
In the Light Independent Process, carbon dioxide FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
(or water for aquatic/marine organisms) is captured and modified by
the addition of Hydrogen to form carbohydrates

The raw materials of photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide, enter
the cells of the leaf, and the products of photosynthesis, sugar AND
OXYGEN, leave the leaf.

Carbon dioxide cannot pass through the protective waxy layer covering
the leaf (cuticle), but it can enter the leaf through an opening (the
stoma) flanked by two guard cells. Likewise, OXYGEN PRODUCED BY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS can only pass out of the leaf through the opened
stomata.

Red

The discussion seems to have been edited somewhat. * Perhaps some learning
has been imparted. *Learning is good.

But, on to the important part of the discussion, clearly, it is ecarecar
who is
the smart one.

As Red has pointed out, carbon dioxide is "captured and modified." *The
oxygen
product of photosynthesis does not come from carbon dioxide but, rather,
from
water where hydrogen is separated from oxygen.


I still say you're wrong. Here's my last attempt to prove it.

The formula for the chemical process of photosynthesis is:
6 H2O + 6 CO2 ---------- C6 H12 O6 + 6 O2

In otherwords, the plant takes in 6 parts water and 6 parts CO2. It
converts it into sap, 6 parts C (from the C02), 12 parts H (6xH2), and
6 parts O (from the H2O). That leaves 6 parts O2 (from the CO2)
excess to be released back into the atmosphere. You can argue all you
want where the sap's O6 comes from, but the end result is that the
plant takes CO2 from the air, uses the C, and releases back to the
atmosphere an equal amount of O2 that it took in. That was my initial
comment and you have done nothing to disprove it.

Red

On Dec 24, 4:24*pm, Lar wrote:
SteveB wrote:
"Red" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:13 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

"ecarecar" wrote in message

That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split
into
hydrogen and oxygen. (Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)

Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.

Not sure from your comment which one of us you think is stupid, but
your link points to ecarecar.

Quoted from your referenced link:

The Carbon Cycle
Plants may be viewed as carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE and oceans by fixing it into organic chemicals.

two steps in the photosynthesis process:
In the Light Independent Process, carbon dioxide FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
(or water for aquatic/marine organisms) is captured and modified by
the addition of Hydrogen to form carbohydrates

The raw materials of photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide, enter
the cells of the leaf, and the products of photosynthesis, sugar AND
OXYGEN, leave the leaf.

Carbon dioxide cannot pass through the protective waxy layer covering
the leaf (cuticle), but it can enter the leaf through an opening (the
stoma) flanked by two guard cells. Likewise, OXYGEN PRODUCED BY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS can only pass out of the leaf through the opened
stomata.

Red

the thread went something like:

plants take in CO2 and put out Oxygen .............

no it doesn't ................

yes, it does ................

no it doesn't ............

you're an idiot ..............

no, you're an idiot ...............

So, I just looked it up in Google, and the formula I saw definitely showed
C)2 + XXXX = O2 + XXXX

Steve

Can hardly wait for the turn of the discussion being how much CO2 is
created by trees at night and in the winter time....popping corn now.

Lar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Probably not near as much as was created by all the wildfires we had
this summer.

"Lar" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Red" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 9:13 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

"ecarecar" wrote in message



That is wrong; it is NOT correct.

The oxygen produced in photosynthesis comes from water which is split
into
hydrogen and oxygen. (Ref. any college - or probably high school -
biology
book)

Or go to this site on Google and find out how stupid you truly a

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BioBookPS.html

HTH, but I doubt it.



Not sure from your comment which one of us you think is stupid, but
your link points to ecarecar.

Quoted from your referenced link:

The Carbon Cycle
Plants may be viewed as carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide FROM THE
ATMOSPHERE and oceans by fixing it into organic chemicals.

two steps in the photosynthesis process:
In the Light Independent Process, carbon dioxide FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
(or water for aquatic/marine organisms) is captured and modified by
the addition of Hydrogen to form carbohydrates

The raw materials of photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide, enter
the cells of the leaf, and the products of photosynthesis, sugar AND
OXYGEN, leave the leaf.

Carbon dioxide cannot pass through the protective waxy layer covering
the leaf (cuticle), but it can enter the leaf through an opening (the
stoma) flanked by two guard cells. Likewise, OXYGEN PRODUCED BY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS can only pass out of the leaf through the opened
stomata.

Red

the thread went something like:

plants take in CO2 and put out Oxygen .............

no it doesn't ................

yes, it does ................

no it doesn't ............

you're an idiot ..............

no, you're an idiot ...............

So, I just looked it up in Google, and the formula I saw definitely
showed C)2 + XXXX = O2 + XXXX

Steve


Can hardly wait for the turn of the discussion being how much CO2 is
created by trees at night and in the winter time....popping corn now.

Lar

Sorry, you have to ask Al about that.

Steve

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:49:22 -0600, "Ryan P."
wrote:

dgk wrote:

....

.
I have not, as yet, bought a big plasma (very high electric usage I
hear) TV, but my resistance is eroding. The Superbowl is fast
approaching.
.
.
I suggest a big screen LCD. Much less power consumption, for one. I
think the picture is better, and you can actually touch them without
burning your hand!


Is that correct? It's hard to find info on which uses less
electricity. I know that plasmas are very hot, but I've read that LCDs
also are hot enough to cook on. Bu then, I have no idea how much my
current CRT model uses. That gets hot also.

On Dec 18, 6:45*am, "Bob" wrote:

Question: * The surface of Mars is also warming. *Doesn't it seem
odd that mankind is changing the climate on another planet?

Yeah, and I flipped a quarter a dozen times yesterday, and half of
them came up heads! I think that quarter must be rigged.

On Dec 19, 9:47*am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.

Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)

On Dec 18, 10:44 am, wrote:

If you go do a search for global cooling, you'll find stories from the
70's when "experts" were equally convinced that the planet faced a
possible mini ice age from a cooling trend. And many similar
arguments were made, eg that due to modern science, they then had
computer models that showed it would happen.

Oh boy, a new "meme". Can you kindly point me towards somewhere where
these "computer models that showed" global cooling would happen are
mentioned? Not one of the usual handwaving "they're out there, look
for them yourself" things, since I just did that and can't find any
mention.

This is how rightwing urban legends are built; piece by piece. Like
the legend that ""experts were equally convinced that the planet faced
a possible mini ice age from a cooling trend." Unless you wish to cite
"a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years" ("Isotopic
paleotemperatures", Cesare Emiliani, Science 154: 851-857) as some
sort of panic over an impending mini ice age, or cite Newsweek
magazine as your "climate expert", as do the John Birch Society.
http://web.archive.org/web/200307201...5_alarmism.htm

Here, somebody else did the work for you, I know you like that:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

That's half false. Obviously, global warming occurs. However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.

Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)

Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it.

--
Art

On Dec 19, 9:47*am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* Isn't it funny that all these melting glaciers are revealing ancient
forests? *How can it be possible that only a few hundred years ago
Greenland was a bountiful colony, and within 100 years became too cold
to support pre-industrial civilization? *How was the planet ever warm
enough before humans built their terrible, nasty, electricity-needing
civilizations? *Clearly those ancient forests, tropical plant fossils in
the Antarctic, and sea creature fossils found on the tops of mountains
were put there by George W. Bush and other Republicans JUST so that they
can deny global warming!

Well, you got a fine point there. In fact, for the vast majority of
the earth's history, it was much warmer, like ten degrees fahrenheit,
and had 5 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does
now. but, all those ancient forests you mention came along, and pulled
so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that it couldn't decay back as fast
as they converted it to carbohydrates, so vast quantities got buried
during the carboniferous era. Hey, maybe that's why it's called the
carboniferous era? And after a hundred million years, the CO2 in the
air was where it is now (or where it was a hundred years ago,
actually) and so was the temp. So, if we dig all that buried carbon
back up and put it back in the air over the next century, there's no
way it can affect the climate, right?

* Who determines what the "perfect" global climate is? *

Oh that's easy. Whatever climate happens as a random byproduct of big
companies doing stuff to maximize profit without having to deal with
the end/waste products, is perfect. Otherwise, you're a socialist and
want to destroy the US.

On Dec 26, 12:37*pm, Art wrote:
z wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:47 am, "Ryan P."
wrote:

* That's half false. *Obviously, global warming occurs. *However,
nothing approaching a majority of scientists agree that HUMANS are the
*main* factor.

Well, as long as we're talking SCIENCE here, I assume you have
quantitative data. So, what estimated percentage of "scientists agree
that HUMANS are the *main* factor"? (of course, you can just point us
towards the reference for the study which determined the number.)

Just about the same percentage that are getting gov't money to research it..

Yep, just exactly the "rightwing scientific" answer I was looking for.
So, moving on in this direction of rightwing "facts", I'd love to hear
how the grant process goes. I mean, nobody "researches global
warming"; they just research CO2 levels in ice cores, etc. So, how do
you apply for a grant to show global warming? The grant applications
just say you're going to measure CO2 levels in ice cores, they don't
say which direction you're going to find things, do you have to put
that in a separate cover letter? Then, is that legally binding, so
that they sue you to give them money back if you publish results that
don't show global warming? It's important that the public know these
things, don't you think? So you should let us in on the secrets,
rather than keep them to yourself.