Alicia Silverstone.

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."

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

Trees are virtually carbon-neutral[/u'].

 

The keyword is "virtually"

 

e s

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

You are absolutely right about it

 

es

Good old fashioned Sarcasm`s just lost on some folks

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

Dinosaurs are newcomers.

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.