facts on CO2

[AntonioLao]

Carbon dioxide is a linear molecule. It has three resonating structures: a double bond and two mirror images of single-triple bond. The latter is shortened by about 0.06 Å while the accepted distance for the double bond is 1.16 Å. At s.t.p. conditions of 273.15K and 760.0 mmHg its density is 1.977 g/dm³; m.p. -56.6°C; b.p. -78.5 °C. It is a colorless odorless gas, soluble in water, ethanol, and acetone. As a component of the atmosphere it is both consumed by plants during photosynthesis but respired by all living things. Moreover it is produced abundantly by wholesale combustion. Since CO2 is 50% heavier than air there is no compelling reason why it should rise above the other gases in the atmosphere except when in a state of high kinetic energy. Therefore it couldn’t possibly be responsible for greenhouse effect at high altitude. However, at low altitude it could possibly be the only source of global warming. If the greenhouse effect is a low altitude affect attributable to excess CO2 over the other greenhouse gases: methane, water vapors, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons then it is solvable by human re-intervention in reducing further artificial emission of greenhouse gases. The thickness of the biosphere is about 12 miles giving a control volume of 3 billions cubic miles. This includes parts of the troposphere and the hydrosphere. The solution is artificial or man-made photosynthesis.

[mkirkpatrick]

Wow, Antonio,thats a brilliant idea,tell me is it actually possible to do? And if it is,then we
had better get to it!



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

tell me is it actually possible to do?

Let you know as soon as possible. But from now on most of my threads will be related to the feasibility of man-made photosynthesis.

[mkirkpatrick]

Let you know as soon as possible. But from now on most of my threads will be related to the feasibility of man-made photosynthesis.

Brilliant my friend,you are a true eco-warrior,I will see if alchemy can assist you,
keep in touch.





warm eco friendly regards,michael.

[MJA]

Nice work AL,
I think it is only obvious at what elevation carbon dioxide presides. While flying in a plane the first thing I noticed was the one to two inches of brown air between the ground and the blue clear or clean sky. It,s almost everywhere.

Is it possible to create photosynthesis without knowing how a plant does it. I was taught that plants photosynthesis but as yet we don't know how. Has that changed?

Many think technology will save the day, and I hope it does.
Until then, I have decided to sell the car and walk or bike.
I think walking is the best technology that exist today.
Healthy for me and the evironment.

Thanks,

=
MJA

[bottomlander]

Is it possible to create photosynthesis without knowing how a plant does it. I was taught that plants photosynthesis but as yet we don't know how. Has that changed?

=
MJA

Dear MJA,

You posted another question to challenge and belittle Science!
Why you repeated so many times with your style "Is it possible to ....... without knowing how ..... ?"
I humbly suggest one answer to your challenge: Nature is possible to function well without knowing Theory-of-everything.
Nature do things automatically, without following your "everything is equal" and "measure", your so-called Truths/TOE.

You said that "I was taught that plants photosynthesis but as yet we don't know how." How you, MJA, represent we or humans or science community and made the conclusion "as yet don't know how" ?
It is normal for your teachers hadn't provided you sufficient and updated details on plant photosynthesis. If you really get the interest to know more about a topic, you have to do advanced self-study, consult with academic journals. Don't just conclude with your out-dated ignorant knowledge.
People will become subjective if they limit themselves just by looking for routine works to support themselves.

Don't just put endless questions to challenge plant photosynthesis or science. Such a double standard is just for you to win, not of good morality. Why don't you question or re-think about your basis of reasoning?

As for your another challenge "Has that changed?"
Many researchers know that the frontier and knowledge of science is pushing forward faster and faster. While MJA you just repeating the wisdoms of Heraclitus 2,500 years ago: "All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." His works have the steps, details and reasoning, but your writings are just jump to conclusions with too little steps, details and reasoning.
Science changed/improved but you seems fixed on your initial ideas (perhaps only improved in your technique on challenges and debates with magic empty words).

Best Regards. Bottomlander