Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?
- Thread starter SnapsProvolone
- Start date
see4
Well-Known Member
Of course I know the difference. However, you are missing the point, like your dim-witted friend beennowhere. And it only goes to show your narrow minded attitude. You chose to believe Red, at his word, but not UB's. Simple as that. I just showed that here. If Red really had children and they really did die in a fire, I am honestly very sorry for dragging them into my point. And I feel terrible. However, just as you and beennowhere and others are so quick to do, I do not believe his story.
See how that works? No. You don't. You're too fucking stupid.
Doer
Well-Known Member
About Nanotubes. A millimeter is not a mile.
And the tensile strength properties of combining fragments of tubes are not known. But, science is funny that way. There are plenty of events in Material Science that became the God Hammer, break throughs, we love the most.Nylon. Carbon fiber. PostIT Notes. Superconductive Ceramics.... Someone today, could get that, 1 single tube, cooking just right, and be able to announce centimeter strands. It just take that one Ah HA! And that is how you get your name on a new material.
Or, they can call it..... Doerite....I like that.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Well, as most of us know carbon dioxide is used by plants and converted into breathable o2. We are increasing co2 output while deforestation takes the metabolic channels away. Both are moving rapidly away from each other, decreasing 02 and increasing co2 is a problem. The oceans produce O2 in the tropical reefs more than anywhere else. The delicate system is dying because the oceans are warming, the ice is melting which reflects solar radiation and cools the planet. The earth is warming, the reefs are dying, there is a storm brewing on multiple fronts.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but this is all happening. I have no agenda just a list of things that are happening. You can feel how you want, but look at the data behind each of these facts, see that they are real and put the multiplier or whatever and then say poppycock.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
The hardest thing about fiction is it has to be believable -Mark Twain
Doer
Well-Known Member
100% bullshit, then. In short you have no idea what you are talking about, so "poppycock" is best, I think. You believe in Saganism. I do not.
The land O2 production exceeds the oceans. And not the reefs but the free floating phytoplanton gives off 02 as it has done and continues since the Great Oxygenation Event.
-------------------------------------------------
Table 2: Annual gain and loss of atmospheric oxygen (Units of 10[SUP]10[/SUP] kg O[SUB]2[/SUB] per year)
| Photosynthesis (land) Photosynthesis (ocean) Photolysis of N[SUB]2[/SUB]O Photolysis of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O |
| Aerobic Respiration Microbial Oxidation Combustion of Fossil Fuel (anthropogenic) Photochemical Oxidation Fixation of N[SUB]2[/SUB] by Lightning Fixation of N[SUB]2[/SUB] by Industry (anthropogenic) Oxidation of Volcanic Gases |
| Chemical Weathering Surface Reaction of O[SUB]3[/SUB] |
[TD="align: center"]16,500
13,500
1.3
0.03[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]Total Gains[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]~ 30,000[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"] Losses - Respiration and Decay [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]23,000
5,100
1,200
600
12
10
5[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"] Losses - Weathering [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]50
12
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]Total Losses[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]~ 30,000
[/TD]
You act like we are running out of O2 and should not tell those lies, imo.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Maybe do some minimum research before you begin preaching?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
chill out, and in English what part of this am I missing. How are we not affecting the O2 supply. Just telling me I am lying and showing me a chart does not change any of the factors I mentioned. Lets talk about each of the factors one by one then. I am not preaching really, this is the first mention of O2 levels in this thread....I thought it might be worth a mention.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
The land based and ocean based production of 02 is slowing right? The earth is losing bio-matter in plant form and increasing bio-mass in animal form. Right? Demand for o2 is increasing?
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
Neither.
Eliminate the power structure at the top (both govt and oil cartels) so we can get on with free (clean/nonpolluting) energy + return farming to organic/non-GMO, which means getting rid of Monsanto's power structure, eliminate the power structure behind chemtrails, and you ill virtually eliminate any contribution they are making as well as lieing about to increase taxes, further controlling the WW population
EDIT: Forgot to mention GW is a ruse. Our entire solar system is heating up due to increased vibratory rate, which will drive the controllers away as they cannot handle the increased vibration
Eliminate the power structure at the top (both govt and oil cartels) so we can get on with free (clean/nonpolluting) energy + return farming to organic/non-GMO, which means getting rid of Monsanto's power structure, eliminate the power structure behind chemtrails, and you ill virtually eliminate any contribution they are making as well as lieing about to increase taxes, further controlling the WW population
EDIT: Forgot to mention GW is a ruse. Our entire solar system is heating up due to increased vibratory rate, which will drive the controllers away as they cannot handle the increased vibration
Doer
Well-Known Member
No. It is a balance. The 10[SUP]10[/SUP] kg O[SUB]2[/SUB] per year in verses 10[SUP]10[/SUP] kg O[SUB]2[/SUB] per year out are both about 30,000.
And notice the Lithosphere. 95% of all O2 is right there beneath our feet. We have processes that can unleash as much O2 as we will ever need.
So, what is real is the Gia system, not that it is an intelligent being perhaps. But, if it is, it needs us, ergo sum. Still the system is real and dwarfs our imagination.
Somehow the scales were tipped to favor aerobic life. And who knows, maybe another anaerobic cycle will take place, some day.
And there will be a lot of stupid monkeys that die blaming the other monkeys for it. It is just what us Ego Monkeys do.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Poppycock.
see4
Well-Known Member
Poppycock.
Balderdash.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Do we need plants for o2 at all? is the balance a human responsibility? will this be an industry? FYI I am trying to learn, nothing else.
Of course I know the difference. However, you are missing the point, like your dim-witted friend beennowhere. And it only goes to show your narrow minded attitude. You chose to believe Red, at his word, but not UB's. Simple as that. I just showed that here. If Red really had children and they really did die in a fire, I am honestly very sorry for dragging them into my point. And I feel terrible. However, just as you and beennowhere and others are so quick to do, I do not believe his story.
See how that works? No. You don't. You're too fucking stupid.
You know I felt sorry for red and thought UB was being a dick to him but I saw something in red which leads me to believe where there's smoke there's red..I mean fire
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
O2 makes up about 21% of the atmosphere. By contrast, CO2 makes up about 0.035%.
Even if the level of CO2 were to quadruple, the change in O2 would be negligible. %O2 would still be around 21%.
Even if the level of CO2 were to quadruple, the change in O2 would be negligible. %O2 would still be around 21%.
Similar threads
- Poll
