Civil Services Mains 2020 Results: In or Out ? Way ahead, gratitude and Pain
The Civils Mains result has been declared. This thread is for sharing your grief , joy , mixed feelings - absolutely anything and everything.
Views?
To me, it seems punishing someone retrospectively and needlessly. It's not necessary that he is the same person he 9 years backs. It is as if we deny human agency and the capability of a person to grow. The decision would have made more sense, had he been removed for any of his recent comments or actions.
The same thing happened with James Gunn. Also, there was a loud movement to remove Dan Harmon, writer of Rick and Morty.
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.
Reference for the last point ---
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_trees_get_their_mass_from
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.
I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
Check the link I've shared above. It is from the air carbon. Else show the proof of plants getting their mass from soil and nutrients. :)
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.Reference for the last point ---
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_trees_get_their_mass_from
By this logic trees should grow extremely well in highly polluted areas. Is that actually the case?
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
Check the link I've shared above. It is from the air carbon. Else show the proof of plants getting their mass from soil and nutrients. :)
I’m pretty sure plants don’t require soil to grow, they just need any medium to anchor (hydroponics is pretty well known for that), but they do need nutrients to grow is also a fact. Because if that’s not the case, I would like to sue my plants who need ten million micronutrients to keep growing
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.Reference for the last point ---
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_trees_get_their_mass_fromBy this logic trees should grow extremely well in highly polluted areas. Is that actually the case?
What flawed logic is this? Growth depends on soil, env factors, sunlight available everything. What that article is trying to say is the source of the matter, which is made up of atmospheric carbon.
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
Check the link I've shared above. It is from the air carbon. Else show the proof of plants getting their mass from soil and nutrients. :)
I’m pretty sure plants don’t require soil to grow, they just need any medium to anchor (hydroponics is pretty well known for that), but they do need nutrients to grow is also a fact. Because if that’s not the case, I would like to sue my plants who need ten million micronutrients to keep growing
Plants require nutrition but they don't build up their mass.
@DeekshitaP Also, you don't discredit a scientific article just through your intuition.
No no wasn’t trying to discredit, just working through my own logic. Debates at my household are basically me throwing about the dumbest of the questions until I’m entirely convinced
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
Check the link I've shared above. It is from the air carbon. Else show the proof of plants getting their mass from soil and nutrients. :)
I’m pretty sure plants don’t require soil to grow, they just need any medium to anchor (hydroponics is pretty well known for that), but they do need nutrients to grow is also a fact. Because if that’s not the case, I would like to sue my plants who need ten million micronutrients to keep growing
Plants require nutrition but they don't build up their mass.
Then what exactly do those nutrients do? *prepares to sue plants*
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
Check the link I've shared above. It is from the air carbon. Else show the proof of plants getting their mass from soil and nutrients. :)
I’m pretty sure plants don’t require soil to grow, they just need any medium to anchor (hydroponics is pretty well known for that), but they do need nutrients to grow is also a fact. Because if that’s not the case, I would like to sue my plants who need ten million micronutrients to keep growing
yaad hai wo pal..jab padhaai kiya karte the...mocks lagaaya karte the..memes se dur rehte the....
Uski yaad mein ekaat question solve karo yeh lo :D
C?
I didn't solution was already posted. One could've eliminated 4th statement as scrub forest would be hard to found in Andaman and Lakshadweep. Also, their small size makes it all possible.
Apart from this, I had a carbon emission doubt for the past one year. It is related to a video posted just now.
When we say plant or animal emitting carbon, isn't it a bit of a misnomer? Since they used up CO2 present in the air to build up their biomass, eventually, that is being released into the air. So, no net addition. Whereas, if you look at fossil fuels you're introducing new carbon from deep down the earth surface into the air. You're actually adding the carbon here. Emission by plants and animals is just a part of the self-sustaining carbon cycle.
For all those who will be disputing that biomass isn't made up of CO2 present in air, you're wrong :p Biomass isn't created from soil.I don’t think it’s simple to say that biomass is created from CO2. Biomass is also made to a large extent from food and nutrients that are consumed, so it’s not net zero addition. I’m by no means an expert on environment issues so this is just my common sense talking
Check the link I've shared above. It is from the air carbon. Else show the proof of plants getting their mass from soil and nutrients. :)
I’m pretty sure plants don’t require soil to grow, they just need any medium to anchor (hydroponics is pretty well known for that), but they do need nutrients to grow is also a fact. Because if that’s not the case, I would like to sue my plants who need ten million micronutrients to keep growing
So what do these nutrients do if not help in growing?
@calvinhobbes i think when people talk about animals contributing to climate change they are usually speaking specifically about livestock. Livestock pose the challenge mainly of GHG emissions due to some gut microbes (experiments are on to replace these). 44% of these emissions are methane which is far more potent a GHG than CO2. And 14.5% of all GHG emissions are from livestock. (Numbers from http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/)
That scale of emissions is not comparable to what other animals including humans emit. I guess the absorption-emission balance is maintained between the carbon that goes to build up our biomass and the carbon released when that biomass decays, but not for livestock who produce GHGs daily at such a huge scale.
BurtMacklin_FBI,sstarrr
Write your comment…
