Jump to content

ExtraSense

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About ExtraSense

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. Is it just a desire to keep on an appearance of propriety? ... On the higher level, how is it possible for hoaxes like quantum computing exist? es
  2. It is a way to avoid some problem, but in my opinion is impossible to do. The journalist is inevitably judging his material. What is being acclaimed as objectivity is to take a middle position. The objectivity really must mean to take objective position: if one side is wrong, one is supposed to take the side that is right. es
  3. Absolutely it is an opposite of the intent of these institutions and their original role. But as they've get perverted, they become poster boys for the dishonesty and shams. es
  4. There are few who might do the right thing. This by no means change the fact that as a whole, those institutions have been prostituted into self-serving parasites. es
  5. Dialectics claims, that everything turns into its opposite. Who knew this will happen to the media and academia of all things?! Academia has turned into fools and parasites, as media has turned into parasites and fools. And like it was said, if the salt loses its saltiness, what can be used to salt it anymore? Can anything be done? ES
  6. Thanks, I have fixed the link http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/10396016.htm e s
  7. NASA O'Keefe to resign! Hopefully, the new boss will kick the NASA science team morons out, and we will smell fowers !!!!!! Mars is selebrating But, he is going to become University Pres! Pseudoscience concervation law to be confirmed... http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/10396016.htm es
  8. We could reintroduce dynosaurs, for a change e s
  9. this particular statement was added by me es
  10. 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
  11. The keyword is "virtually" e s
  12. You are absolutely right about it es
  13. 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
  14. 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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.