YT2095 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Good Answer! and to Quote: "I think that Clueless (1995) was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness."
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 This is a great thread. ES, Sayonara has a biology degree. You admit to being clueless about the subject, and appear to not have read your own sources. Apparently, being a mod is dangerous to your d'agree. You do not believe that plants get their hydrocarbons from diet supplements, do you? e s
YT2095 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 You do not believe that plants get their hydrocarbons from diet supplements' date=' do you? e s[/quote'] where was that mentioned or hinted at?
Sayonara Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Apparently' date=' being a mod is dangerous to your d'agree.You do not believe that plants get their hydrocarbons from diet supplements, do you?[/quote'] Go back to the site you referenced in the other thread, and this time READ IT.
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 Go back to the site you referenced in the other thread, and this time READ IT. 2.1 Natural carbon fluxes GtC / year Atmosphere --> terrestrial vegetation 120 Photosynthesis Terrestrial vegetation --> atmosphere 60 Respiration Terrestrial vegetation --> soils & detritus 60 Soils & detritus --> atmosphere 60 Respiration --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Atmosphere --> surface ocean 90 Surface ocean --> atmosphere 90 --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Surface ocean --> deep ocean 90 Inorganic carbon Surface ocean --> deep ocean 10 Organic carbon Deep ocean --> surface ocean 100 Mostly inorganic --------------- atmosphere change = 0 TOTAL ATMOSPHERE CHANGE = ZERO !!!!! These fluxes are averages for 1980-1989, with anthropogenic carbon omitted. --------- 2 Anthropogenic carbon fluxes Carbon dioxide sources GtC / year Fossil fuel burning, cement production 5.5 (5.0-6.0) Changes in tropical land use 1.6 (0.6-2.6) Total anthropogenic emissions 7.1 (6.0-8.2) Partitioning among reservoirs GtC / year Storage in the atmosphere 3.3 (3.1-3.5) Oceanic uptake 2.0 (1.2-2.8) Uptake by Northern Hemisphere forest regrowth 0.5 (0.0-1.0) Additional terrestrial sinks: CO2 fer- tilization, nitrogen fertilization, climatic effects 1.3 (-0.2-2.8) TOTAL ATMOSPHERE CHANGE = 3.3 Gtc/year Now, this article has data, that can be relied upon. At least, it is the data that current pseudoscience use to talk about Global Warming. My point is, that they misunderstand the data they have and use. The photosynthesys consumes 120 GtC/year. We add 3.3 GtC/year. It is less than 3pct of what photosynthesys currently consumes. If we were able to add 3pct of right vegetation, while keeping soils and ditrius CO2 outflow constant, it would compensate for all anthropogenic emissions. es
JaKiri Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 2.1 Natural carbon fluxes GtC / year Atmosphere --> terrestrial vegetation 120 Photosynthesis Terrestrial vegetation --> atmosphere 60 Respiration Terrestrial vegetation --> soils & detritus 60 Soils & detritus --> atmosphere 60 Respiration --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Now with highlights! Atmosphere --> terrestrial vegetation 120 Photosynthesis Terrestrial vegetation --> atmosphere 60 Respiration Terrestrial vegetation --> soils & detritus 60 Soils & detritus --> atmosphere 60 Respiration --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Read -> Comprehend -> Post. [edit] Just in case it needed more emphasis... atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0 atmosphere change = 0
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 Now with highlights! Since you did not read the conclusion of my post: *** The photosynthesys consumes 120 GtC/year. We add 3.3 GtC/year. It is less than 3pct of what photosynthesys currently consumes. If we were able to add 3pct of right vegetation, while keeping soils and ditrius CO2 outflow constant, it would compensate for all anthropogenic emissions. *** On other hand if we will continue deforestation, we will continue the path of accelerated global warming. es
YT2095 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 if all else remains perfectly ballanced, this 60 60 120 stuff etc... HOW do the plants know if it`s man made CO2 (I use that term loosley) or Natural CO2? bloody amazing that they`ll only pick their own and ballance out!
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 HOW do the plants know if it`s man made CO2 (I use that term loosley) or Natural CO2? bloody amazing that they`ll only pick their own and ballance out! You are absolutely right about it es
Sayonara Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Extrasense: Since you have replied by copying and pasting the content of someone else's file, then posting again with your flawed interpretation, I am simply going to repeat the one point you are ignoring: Trees are virtually carbon-neutral.
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 Trees are virtually carbon-neutral[/u']. The keyword is "virtually" e s
Sayonara Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 The only reason they aren't carbon-neutral is because we take parts of them and tie it up in products. On a long enough time line, most of those end up being burned anyway.
JaKiri Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 The photosynthesys consumes 120 GtC/year. That's perfectly true. You're missing out the part where it puts it ALL BACK AGAIN' date=' so succinctly summed up in the article by the statement: atmosphere change = 0
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 The only reason they aren't carbon-neutral is because we take parts of them and tie it up in products[/u'].On a long enough time line, most of those end up being burned anyway. The CO2 level has been estimated to be about 30 times that of today some 200 million years ago, and about 5 times that of today 60 million years ago .What happen to all that CO2? It was consumed by vegetation. And turned into fossil fuels, if you will. es
YT2095 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Once upon a time, before alot of things died and got squashed under tons of sediment layers to make oil and gas and the likes, all the carbon on Earth was still all mostly on the surface doing stuff quite happily. Burning fossil fuels and thereby putting that Carban back on the surface again could at worst reset us to a similar era where mankind wasn`t even THOUGHT ABOUT a time when Mother nature was doing her own thing quite happily! I really don`t think Carbon is the real problem here
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 That's perfectly true. You're missing out the part where it puts it ALL BACK AGAIN, so succinctly summed up in the article by the statement: atmosphere change = 0[/i'] this particular statement was added by me es
JaKiri Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 this particular statement was added by me es That makes it even stranger that you haven't read it. I'm amazed you can't comprehend something you yourself wrote.
YT2095 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 You are absolutely right about it es Good old fashioned Sarcasm`s just lost on some folks
ExtraSense Posted December 9, 2004 Author Posted December 9, 2004 Burning fossil fuels and thereby putting that Carbon back on the surface again could at worst reset us to a similar era where mankind wasn`t even THOUGHT ABOUT a time when Mother nature was doing her own thing quite happily! We could reintroduce dynosaurs, for a change e s
Sayonara Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 The CO2 level has been estimated to be about 30 times that of today some 200 million years ago' date=' and about 5 times that of today 60 million years ago .What happen to all that CO2? It was consumed by vegetation. And turned into fossil fuels, if you will.[/quote'] Which is not related to your original point, i.e. the one I'm refuting. I didn't close the other thread so that you could continue spreading your crap in another. Game over.
Recommended Posts