Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh please tell us all what you see when you observe heat. I had no idea you can actually see thermal energy. Popcorn...

Swan wrote:
You had no idea that thermal energy is visible because you are a jerkoff with a degree that means nothing.

You think this is thermal energy you're seeing?! Too funny!! Thermal imaging yes. The flow of thermal energy....um, no.

More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote:
PS. You are so pathetically stupid that you can't even use your own joke but need to pliagerize my popcorn joke.

You are seriously claiming the popcorn joke?! I suppose you also invented the internet.

Infrared is a form of thermal energy (heat) that the thermal camera converts to light. This I know as I also know that you are radically underpaid for this task. But that's ok as you are funny.

Perhaps we can get you upgraded to janitors pay?

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh please tell us all what you see when you observe heat. I had no idea you can actually see thermal energy. Popcorn...

Swan wrote:
You had no idea that thermal energy is visible because you are a jerkoff with a degree that means nothing.

You think this is thermal energy you're seeing?! Too funny!! Thermal imaging yes. The flow of thermal energy....um, no.

More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote:
PS. You are so pathetically stupid that you can't even use your own joke but need to pliagerize my popcorn joke.

You are seriously claiming the popcorn joke?! I suppose you also invented the internet.

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Well, how do you know the temperature differential wasn't caused by rapid cooling? Yes, that's right, rapid cooling is also heat. No worries though, I do not expect you to comprehend this. Don't worry though, I'm willing to continue working with you until you get caught up.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Then how come I can't see mirages all over the ground everywhere I look on a hot day?

They are a lot more rare a sighting. One day I saw one when it was only 60 F.

How do you explain that?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Then how come I can't see mirages all over the ground everywhere I look on a hot day?

They are a lot more rare a sighting. One day I saw one when it was only 60 F.

How do you explain that?

You likely saw a mirage on a 60 degree day because LSD causes visual disturbances, which in your situation might actually momentarily straighten out your delusion that there is something here for you to achieve.

There ain't nuttin here to winz, when you accept this you will see how foolish that you R

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Then how come I can't see mirages all over the ground everywhere I look on a hot day?

They are a lot more rare a sighting. One day I saw one when it was only 60 F.

How do you explain that?

You likely saw a mirage on a 60 degree day because LSD causes visual disturbances, which in your situation might actually momentarily straighten out your delusion that there is something here for you to achieve.

There ain't nuttin here to winz, when you accept this you will see how foolish that you R

Must be my mission here is accomplished.

I will now pray that I can vanish faster than a mirage being approached.

sealover wrote:
The newest paper by Adamczyk reminds me of this thread by "climate scientist".

And the discussion between Swan and Spongy Iris about nitrogen fixation reminds me what Adamczyk and I both found in our ecosystem studies.

You would think that in a nitrogen-deficient ecosystem, nitrogen-fixing plants would have an automatic competitive advantage. Oddly, nitrogen-fixing plants are nearly absent in extremely-nitrogen-deficient ecosystems such as the Pygmy Forest, where I showed tannin concentration in the conifers doubling along a soil fertility gradient - higher in more nitrogen deficient soil.

And Adamczyk just reaffirmed that trees have lower tannin concentration when they get nitrogen fertilizer.

Some have suggested that bioavailable calcium must be above a minimal threshold for nitrogen-fixing plants to survive. Whatever the reason, you just don't find many nitrogen fixers in the very ecosystems where they would seem to have the greatest competitive advantage. Instead, the plants just get real stingy with the nitrogen that is already there. They can fight by simply starving their neighbors for nitrogen, tying it all up with the tannins they produce.


My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant


None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.


When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.


LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know


I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?


Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed


Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...



Look I understand, you hate losing, but you said that Nitrogen fixing plants do not get the Nitrogen that they store from the atmosphere and you were wrong. You even implied that Nitrogen fixers add Nitrogen to the soil by up taking Nitrogen from that soil, which indicates that you not only failed chemistry but everything after third grade math as well.

It's ok, nobody wins when arguing with me, just how it is. Ask the bureau

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gosh, I'm learning something new about soil science.

Swan has enlightened me that plants "store" nitrogen from the atmosphere. Previous posts specifically explained how that nitrogen is "stored" in the root nodules.

I may have been credited for discovering a "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" (Chapin, 1995, Nature, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle").

But I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how nitrogen can be "stored" in the root nodule of a nitrogen fixing plant.

Please enlighten me further.


"Well then, how did it get into the atmosphere?" - Spongy Iris

Yes, how did all that N2 gas get into the atmosphere?

More than one mechanism can generate N2. N2 can get squeezed out of rocks during metamorphism, derived from ammonia, nitrate, and high heat and pressure. Fertilizer bombs make N2, from ammonium and nitrate. Annamox bacteria make N2 from ammonium and nitrate.

If you could ask every molecule of N2 in the atmosphere TODAY exactly where it came from, more than 90% of them would give the same answer. Denitrification by bacteria in soil or water is the process that gave us nearly all the N2 in the air right now. Okay, maybe there are more annamox bacteria than we know about.

Denitrifying bacteria are found in low oxygen conditions, where they use nitrate, rather than oxygen, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. The oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of denitrification is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate ion is produced as organic carbon gets oxidized during denitrification.

So, N2 comes and goes to and from the atmosphere. Nearly all the N2 molecules in the atmosphere TODAY were generated by denitrifying bacteria. The process is driven by energy released from organic carbon oxidized anaerobically. That organic carbon was made photosynthesis.

Really, PHOTOSYNTHESIS made the N2 in the atmosphere, because photosynthesis made the organic carbon that drives denitrification. Without photosynthesis, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere. There would be very little nitrogen. It would be a very thin atmosphere.

Nearly every N2 molecule in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got oxidized via dentrification. Every molecule of N2 in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got transformed to carbonate, rather than carbon dioxide, upon oxidation.

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Because if you actually study chemistry, you don't just eyeball a scale assume it tells you everything you need to know.

You begin with an understanding of what pH actually IS.

pH = -log[H+]

And you know that solutions of acid with > 1 M [H+] concentration exist, and solutions with > 1 M [OH-] concentration exist...

So before you even see the oversimplified pH SCALE, you already know that solutions with pH<0 and pH>14 HAVE to exist. Because they do!

And because what pH really IS is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity (molarity). Chemists don't just learn how to quickly look at a simplified scale and make authoritative declarations about its limits. Not REAL chemists, anyway.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Because if you actually study chemistry, you don't just eyeball a scale assume it tells you everything you need to know.

You begin with an understanding of what pH actually IS.

pH = -log[H+]

And you know that solutions of acid with > 1 M [H+] concentration exist, and solutions with > 1 M [OH-] concentration exist...

So before you even see the oversimplified pH SCALE, you already know that solutions with pH<0 and pH>14 HAVE to exist. Because they do!

And because what pH really IS is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity (molarity). Chemists don't just learn how to quickly look at a simplified scale and make authoritative declarations about its limits. Not REAL chemists, anyway.

...or you could just know that grass is better for erosion control than trees. It's pretty simple stuff. Now stop bothering me. I need some breakfast and my solar powered toaster with wind turbine backup is not working.

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Because if you actually study chemistry, you don't just eyeball a scale assume it tells you everything you need to know.

You begin with an understanding of what pH actually IS.

pH = -log[H+]

And you know that solutions of acid with > 1 M [H+] concentration exist, and solutions with > 1 M [OH-] concentration exist...

So before you even see the oversimplified pH SCALE, you already know that solutions with pH<0 and pH>14 HAVE to exist. Because they do!

And because what pH really IS is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity (molarity). Chemists don't just learn how to quickly look at a simplified scale and make authoritative declarations about its limits. Not REAL chemists, anyway.

...or you could just know that grass is better for erosion control than trees. It's pretty simple stuff. Now stop bothering me. I need some breakfast and my solar powered toaster with wind turbine backup is not working.

Grab your power penis pistols cause we're going to have history fun with the greenhouse effect.

Did you know that first scientist to discover the mechanistic basis for the greenhouse effect was a WOMAN?

Someone who didn't even HAVE a power penis pistol was the first one to figure this out.

Her name was Eunice Foote and she made her discovery in 1856.

MORE FUN FACTS

In her paper about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, she used the prevailing vocabulary. CO2 is "carbonic acid gas". Isn't that COOL?

Right there in the name for the gas it explains how we get ocean acidification.

I think I'm going to start referring to CO2 as "carbonic acid gas" from now on.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Because if you actually study chemistry, you don't just eyeball a scale assume it tells you everything you need to know.

You begin with an understanding of what pH actually IS.

pH = -log[H+]

And you know that solutions of acid with > 1 M [H+] concentration exist, and solutions with > 1 M [OH-] concentration exist...

So before you even see the oversimplified pH SCALE, you already know that solutions with pH<0 and pH>14 HAVE to exist. Because they do!

And because what pH really IS is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity (molarity). Chemists don't just learn how to quickly look at a simplified scale and make authoritative declarations about its limits. Not REAL chemists, anyway.

...or you could just know that grass is better for erosion control than trees. It's pretty simple stuff. Now stop bothering me. I need some breakfast and my solar powered toaster with wind turbine backup is not working.

Grab your power penis pistols cause we're going to have history fun with the greenhouse effect.

Did you know that first scientist to discover the mechanistic basis for the greenhouse effect was a WOMAN?

Someone who didn't even HAVE a power penis pistol was the first one to figure this out.

Her name was Eunice Foote and she made her discovery in 1856.

MORE FUN FACTS

In her paper about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, she used the prevailing vocabulary. CO2 is "carbonic acid gas". Isn't that COOL?

Right there in the name for the gas it explains how we get ocean acidification.

I think I'm going to start referring to CO2 as "carbonic acid gas" from now on.

Are you saying that a woman cannot have a penis? Because that is sexist, or so the woke fags say anyways.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Because if you actually study chemistry, you don't just eyeball a scale assume it tells you everything you need to know.

You begin with an understanding of what pH actually IS.

pH = -log[H+]

And you know that solutions of acid with > 1 M [H+] concentration exist, and solutions with > 1 M [OH-] concentration exist...

So before you even see the oversimplified pH SCALE, you already know that solutions with pH<0 and pH>14 HAVE to exist. Because they do!

And because what pH really IS is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity (molarity). Chemists don't just learn how to quickly look at a simplified scale and make authoritative declarations about its limits. Not REAL chemists, anyway.

...or you could just know that grass is better for erosion control than trees. It's pretty simple stuff. Now stop bothering me. I need some breakfast and my solar powered toaster with wind turbine backup is not working.

Grab your power penis pistols cause we're going to have history fun with the greenhouse effect.

Did you know that first scientist to discover the mechanistic basis for the greenhouse effect was a WOMAN?

Someone who didn't even HAVE a power penis pistol was the first one to figure this out.

Her name was Eunice Foote and she made her discovery in 1856.

MORE FUN FACTS

In her paper about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, she used the prevailing vocabulary. CO2 is "carbonic acid gas". Isn't that COOL?

Right there in the name for the gas it explains how we get ocean acidification.

I think I'm going to start referring to CO2 as "carbonic acid gas" from now on.

Are you saying that a woman cannot have a penis? Because that is sexist, or so the woke fags say anyways.

Ladies can transition too, and I hear it is a great way to get rid of those pesky monthly periods.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Seriously, how is it that you still don't know how to use the quoting feature? What a mess, not even going to try and read it.

I need someone to show me that coniferous trees need nitrogen to any major extent. I think said trees can naturally survive with scarce nitrogen availability; they just won't thrive like those afforded nitrogen fertilizer.

Let me know what you find out. I want to plant some for erosion control. I heard they make a hell of a dirt fence.

Because if you actually study chemistry, you don't just eyeball a scale assume it tells you everything you need to know.

You begin with an understanding of what pH actually IS.

pH = -log[H+]

And you know that solutions of acid with > 1 M [H+] concentration exist, and solutions with > 1 M [OH-] concentration exist...

So before you even see the oversimplified pH SCALE, you already know that solutions with pH<0 and pH>14 HAVE to exist. Because they do!

And because what pH really IS is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity (molarity). Chemists don't just learn how to quickly look at a simplified scale and make authoritative declarations about its limits. Not REAL chemists, anyway.

...or you could just know that grass is better for erosion control than trees. It's pretty simple stuff. Now stop bothering me. I need some breakfast and my solar powered toaster with wind turbine backup is not working.

Grab your power penis pistols cause we're going to have history fun with the greenhouse effect.

Did you know that first scientist to discover the mechanistic basis for the greenhouse effect was a WOMAN?

Someone who didn't even HAVE a power penis pistol was the first one to figure this out.

Her name was Eunice Foote and she made her discovery in 1856.

MORE FUN FACTS

In her paper about how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, she used the prevailing vocabulary. CO2 is "carbonic acid gas". Isn't that COOL?

Right there in the name for the gas it explains how we get ocean acidification.

I think I'm going to start referring to CO2 as "carbonic acid gas" from now on.

Are you saying that a woman cannot have a penis? Because that is sexist, or so the woke fags say anyways.

Ladies can transition too, and I hear it is a great way to get rid of those pesky monthly periods.

Some decisions are hard to go back on.

Someone I love is very grateful that she didn't become a "he". Approved by the shrinks and on the waiting list to get the scalpel. She fell in love with someone who loved her body just the way it was. 45 years later, she is glad to have kept it that way.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Then how come I can't see mirages all over the ground everywhere I look on a hot day?

They are a lot more rare a sighting. One day I saw one when it was only 60 F.

How do you explain that?

You likely saw a mirage on a 60 degree day because LSD causes visual disturbances, which in your situation might actually momentarily straighten out your delusion that there is something here for you to achieve.

There ain't nuttin here to winz, when you accept this you will see how foolish that you R

Im a BM wrote:
Trump Derangement Syndrome on Full Display

Our stable genius Orange Messiah has something to say to Brazil.

Release the hostage immediately, or your account will be charged the full stated price of the ransom, plus late fees.

Tariffs are an all-purpose blunt force weapon for leverage in any situation.

And they give SO MUCH money to the United States in the process.

Tariffs are a win-win, no matter what you are using them for!

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote: of mass matter?

Talking about nothing, like Seinfeld and Can't Stand Ya.

But let me ask, how do you know a mirage depends on air density differential?

What causes the density differential? Oh that would be heat wouldn't it Shirley.

130 vs a rock solid 90 to 95

Then how come I can't see mirages all over the ground everywhere I look on a hot day?

They are a lot more rare a sighting. One day I saw one when it was only 60 F.

How do you explain that?

You likely saw a mirage on a 60 degree day because LSD causes visual disturbances, which in your situation might actually momentarily straighten out your delusion that there is something here for you to achieve.

There ain't nuttin here to winz, when you accept this you will see how foolish that you R