Ha, ha, and ha, very funny but completely unoriginal.
In the Chelmyabinsk asteroid air burst, there was a video of people who saw the flash and then stood there for multiples of seconds until the blast wave bloodied their faces with glass shards.
Duck and Cover is for real for all wide-are effect events in the kiloton to megaton range, whatever their source. If you are close enough, yes, you will be vaporized. If you are far enough away that you can be conscious after seeing the flash, it will take some time for the blast to arrive. Instead of just standing there with your mouth open, get your face under cover so people don't have to pick the glass splinters out of your hide.
Don't get me started about Energy Star dehumidifiers!
(channeling Krusty from the Simpsons) Isn't anyone here going to get me started?
The Energy Star rating of dehumidifiers is a fraud because dehumidifiers are rated under continuous operation at a much higher level of humidity that anyone should have in their basement (who as it at 80 deg let alone 80 deg and 60 percent humidity in their basement?).
Furthermore, a dehumidifier should use a humidistat to cycle the unit on and off to maintain a reasonable level of dryness rather than run all the time to claw at the air and try to make it desert dry. Dehumidifiers these days are using constant-fan, which during the compressor off time evaporates all of the moisture sticking to the coils with surface tension that you paid for electricity to condense during the on time. This can cut the efficiency by half and is not accounted for in the Energy Star Standard. The Florida Solar Energy Center explains this effect for central air conditioning and suggests some "hacks" to increase their moisture removal, but I cannot interest anyone at FSEC let alone EPA-Energy Star in this for dehumidifiers.
Well, I guess Energy Star has "caught wise" to this issue because they started notating in their ratings which units run the fan continuously and which ones don't. But those clever manufacturers, they are running long run-on times of the fan that does the same thing as the units that cycle the fan off.
The only thing I can guess is that the dehumidifier companies are having a hard time with refrigerant leaks, and maybe they think corrosion is a problem and the fan run on time is to prevent moisture from being in contact with the coils 100% of the time. Manufacturers used to have 5 year warranties on the "sealed" system that are now reduced to 1 year, and manufacturers do not honor their warranty. They will not repair a leaked unit, ever. They give you a coupon towards the purchase of a new unit that won't cover the recycling fee required for disposing of the old unit in many municipalities.
I don't know. No one from EPA, the manufacturers, to Focus on Energy will talk about any of this and what can be done. It is energy conservation theatre of acting like they care about the environment rather than doing anything effective.
For anyone out their that cares about electricity usage and wants to hack this, the suggestion from people who have tried is to find the humidity sensor, remove it from the cabinet and put it remote from the humidity given off by the wet coils. This lengthens the on/off cycle time which will reduce the fan run-on losses in efficiency more than the larger swings in room humidity reduce the unit efficiency.
What I do is look at a humidity gauge in the basement every night and program an hour or maybe two of continuous running using the timer mode, checking the number of pints (pounds) of water in the bucket against the electric use logged with a Kill-a-Watt. I can get as much as 4 lbs moisture removed per kWHr vs 1.8 with the normal automatic mode of the unit.
But gosh is this labor intensive. I am acting as one of the "valve boys" tending a Newcomen steam engine before the invention of valve gear. This is the freakin' 21st Century and I am operating the dehumidifier like an 18th Century mine pumping engine. Thanks, EPA!
My wife's favorite beverage is unsweetened cocoa powder stirred into hot milk. It leaves this chocolate residue on all the tea cups that doesn't come off.
When we first got married, the solution to my wife hand (re-)washing every single cup coming out of the dishwasher was Cascade Complete.
Or Cascade Complete used to do the job on the cocoa cups, but it stopped doing it, I blamed the dishwasher as getting old, but then I read about the phosphate thing.
You see, we have really hard water, but I got tired of paying for salt and lugging it into the basement and loading the softener, so I run un-softened water and just replace the water heater when it limes up with un-softened water rather than when it rusts out from softened water.
Do you think using a few teaspoons of TSP instead of sending tens of pounds of salt into the wastewater is a good tradeoff? Or does Gaia not negotiate?
I had this discussion about the "ethics" of using TSP during a dishwasher discussion with my neighbors who attend synagogue and observe the Holy Days. I suggested the TSP thing (haven't tried it yet myself) but warned that this has to be balanced against ones conscience regarding the Environment.
I was told, "Thanks for the tip and not a problem. We are supposed to write our sins down on a piece of paper on the Day of Atonement, and I can just add this one to the list . .."
Men know that dishwashers sterilize the dishes because the dryer coil does double duty as a "hot water booster" to raise the water temperature to well above the pitiful lukewarm level that regulations allow for the water heater. Even if little flecks of dried food are still stuck to the dishes, those food particles are safe because they have been autoclaved.
Women, on the other hand, always manage to find those tiny flecks of dried food that are invisible to male visual receptors, and they will rewash every last dish that you carefully loaded into the dishwasher.
My wife has heard for the 100th time that I once dated the woman responsible for the lukewarm, bacterial-growing output of the water heater by helping draft the legislation meant to prevent kids from getting scalded from the hot water spigot. But dishes get washed by hand anyway.
Maybe its like a car wash where you have the Basic Wash that is programmed to leave all the road salt still sticking to your car up to the That Women Washing a Car in "Cool Hand Luke" level?
It is all the same wash only if you pay for the higher levels you get more neon lights that flash "drip cycle" and "spray on wax" or "Ooohhh, that gal doesn't know what she is doing . .." to which Paul Newman snarls "she sure as heck does" and then he has to eat all of those hardboiled eggs to get back the respect of George Kennedy who is the ring leader among the prisoners in the chain gang.
What does a Tesla use in highway cruise? About a third of a kWHr to the mile? If an efficient constant-speed fossil fuel generator can produce 12 kWHr per gallon of gasoline equivalent, the Tesla is getting about 36 MPG? People are claiming 50 MPG average usage from a Prius?
For all of the low drag coefficient and regen braking of the Tesla, the breakthrough with that vehicle is the large capacity battery.
On the other hand, some 40 years ago I knew an engineering professor who was doing EV conversions on vans using lead-acid batteries. He was claiming that the "round trip" from the wall outlet through the rectifier to charge the battery, and then to discharge the battery through the chopper (no inverter--he was using a DC motor) to the motor was about 50 percent efficient. In other words, say he charged the battery with 10 kWHr as read from his electric meter, he was getting 5 kWHr applied to the wheels.
The Tesla lithium battery is supposed to be more efficient than the lead-acid battery in the charge-discharge cycle? But a reasonably slippery car should go, what, 65 MPH on 12 kW (or less) at the wheels? This means that a Tesla should be using below.2 kWHr/mile on the open road but that it uses more than that is evidence that their charger-battery-inverter-motor efficiency is below 60 percent, which is in line with what the professor doing EV conversions was saying?
The Prius suffers from the same round-trip problem, but by being hybrid, much of the power goes directly to the wheels. The Chevy Volt suffers more from the round-trip problem, although at high speeds there is a mode with mechanical transmission of engine power to the wheels? I am told that in highway mode beyond the range of the battery pack, the gasoline efficiency of the Volt is unimpressive, in the mid 30's.
A reporter wrote about inmates in a prison in California and what their lives behind bars were like, remarking that all the inmates had cell phones even though they were forbidden.
You could tell what model cell phone a prisoner had by the bar of soap they had carved into a (ahem) "keeper." You see, they stored their cell phone "where the sun doesn't shine", and the shaped bar of soap was to reserve a space for the phone. The reporter than quipped, "I pity the man with a Galaxy S4 . .."
What I never figured out from the article was, where do they keep the charging cord?
There is simply enormous potential for not using electricity in the first place and people are pushing the expensive solution of solar power generation,.
A dehumidifier is this device that people put in their basement with the best intentions of fighting dampness and the accompanying mildew, a device that is cheaply made in a Certain Country so the refrigerant leaks out, after which the dehumidifier runs constantly to effectively double the household energy usage only the dehumidifier isn't doing anything except act as a space heater, a device that no one these days will repair after the refrigerant leaks out because government regulations, only it doesn't matter because homeowners with the humidifier discharging to a floor drain that they don't have to empty the bucket don't check on the operation of this device or even know how to check.
Even if you keep tabs on your dehumidifier, if you run it on the humidistat control, the humidity setting can be wildly inaccurate and setting it to a "reasonable" level can have the unit run constantly at great expense in electric use, and even if you check it against a humidity gauge that you have checked against outdoor weather reports of temperature and humidity, most units today either run the fan continuously or have a long fan run-on time past when the humidistat clicks off, where you end up evaporating moisture clinging to the coils by surface tension amounting to about half the moisture condensed during the on-time part of the cycle. And this is for an Energy Star qualified unit. And the neither manufacturers nor Energy Star won't answer their e-mail when asked about this.
So we are to spend effectively 10's of thousands of dollars per house to generate the electricity to supply the energy wasted by a $200 dehumidifier?
I do not have any solar cells nor any exotic tech and don't do anything apart from 1) run the dehumidifier on a timer and empty the bucket manually, 2) use fluorescent lights, and 3) turn off stuff not is use, and my electric usage (I air condition, dehumidify, cook, and dry clothes electrically) runs about 220 kWHr/month whereas houses in the same neighborhood are using 4 times as much per month or more. The local power company lets you look up household energy use by address and I have checked.
I eat apples with maggots in them -- all the time.
The apple maggot fly (AMF) lays eggs and little tiny larvae burrow through it leaving brown tracks. I have no problem eating those apples, but most of those apples fall off the tree before I get to them, and the remaining apples rot after a short time in storage.
Acetamiprid has allowed me to have a halfway decent apple harvest from a home orchard for two years now. It doesn't seem to kill the adult flies so the fruit is still blemished, but it appears to kill the larvae as there are many fewer brown tracks and the apples keep in my cool basement until mid winter.
The alternatives are organophosphates, which are nerve gas precursors or pyrethroids, which are much more bee toxic.
But the categorical dismissal of the use of pesticides in growing fruit along with the high moderation points -- have people around here ever tried to plant an apple tree and get usable amounts of fruit from it?
When the Cold War was winding down, the National (Weapons) Labs were looking for something to do to justify their budget -- they branched out into alternative energy, environmental research, etc. Freeman Dyson was doing climate research before you were even born.
My Momma always told me not to play with the light switch . . . or "rev" the vacuum cleaner by switching it on and off to make it sound like a Honda.
You would think that if your kid was actually finding some entertainment in sweeping the living room that you would cut some slack to playing with the power switch to make a "cool" sound.
But I digress but only a little bit. The hydrocarbon and nuclear plants are backed up by brother hydrocarbon and nuclear plants. If one goes down and another takes its place, no one notices the difference. If wind cuts out, however, this miasma of partially burnt hydrocarbon fumes and radon gas permeates the land. The whole point of wind is to not burn hydrocarbons or split uranium atoms into dangerously radioactive elements, but it is too expensive to back up wind with excess wind capacity to prevent using those foul backup sources.
A little bit more than half of all the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels and making cement ends up adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The fraction is a little bit less than half if you count chopping down rain forest towards human-generated emissions.
Of the "missing" half of emitted carbon, a bit less than half of that is the net carbon flux dissolved into the oceans. We know that by a really clever bit of mass-balance accounting. We can determine to total CO2 emissions from accurate quantification of the ongoing depletion in atmospheric O2. Dissolving CO2 into the ocean in inorganic form does not change O2. Photosynthesis takes up CO2 and in the process releases back O2, but this takes place on a different slope as combustion of fossil fuel on the plot of atmospheric O2 against CO2. The reason for that is that fossil fuels are largely pure hydrocarbons whereas plant matter -- cellulose, lipids -- incorporates substantial oxygen.
So the biosphere, and someone can correct me on this, it is widely regarded that we are talking about the terrestrial biosphere, is soaking up fully one quarter of the emitted CO2. We are talking mass balance here -- there is nowhere else for it to go.
That is pretty much the charitable explanation that Feynman offered in his notorious public talk on this subject.
That and confirmation bias. The classic example is Millikan's initial but not-quite-accurate measurement of the charge of an electron followed by subsequent results that "drifted" slowly but surely to the more modern measurement value.
Gee, Millikan is way off, but I can't publish this, I need to go over my apparatus and procedures to find what is wrong. In that way, only small changes from the "accepted" value get published until converging on a more accurate value.
Feynman was as much as saying that research in behavioral psychology was a Cargo Cult -- going through the motions that brought the planes and ships to our island without understanding that the arrival of the planes and ships had something to do with a war fought far from the horizon of the island and that actions taken by people on the island have no influence on when that war started, how long it continued, and when it ended.
He pretty much gives the benefit of the doubt on fraud, but he calls them out on experimental control, giving the example of one investigator going to the trouble to isolate the cues rats were relying upon in a maze experiment, finding it to be the sounds their feet made on the wooden boards of the maze floor, suppressing that sound by placing the maze box in sound-dampening sand, and finding the behavior of the rats to be entirely different when deprived of that cue. The amazing thing, to Feynman, was that setting the maze in sand was never adopted by subsequent studies -- the scientists in that "community" just plain didn't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that's what men get as they put on some pounds as they age?
Soylent brown . . . is. pee-puhl!
What, disable updating and forgo the feature that your house can park by itself?
. . . car makes space for you!
Ha, ha, and ha, very funny but completely unoriginal.
In the Chelmyabinsk asteroid air burst, there was a video of people who saw the flash and then stood there for multiples of seconds until the blast wave bloodied their faces with glass shards.
Duck and Cover is for real for all wide-are effect events in the kiloton to megaton range, whatever their source. If you are close enough, yes, you will be vaporized. If you are far enough away that you can be conscious after seeing the flash, it will take some time for the blast to arrive. Instead of just standing there with your mouth open, get your face under cover so people don't have to pick the glass splinters out of your hide.
Don't get me started about Energy Star dehumidifiers!
(channeling Krusty from the Simpsons) Isn't anyone here going to get me started?
The Energy Star rating of dehumidifiers is a fraud because dehumidifiers are rated under continuous operation at a much higher level of humidity that anyone should have in their basement (who as it at 80 deg let alone 80 deg and 60 percent humidity in their basement?).
Furthermore, a dehumidifier should use a humidistat to cycle the unit on and off to maintain a reasonable level of dryness rather than run all the time to claw at the air and try to make it desert dry. Dehumidifiers these days are using constant-fan, which during the compressor off time evaporates all of the moisture sticking to the coils with surface tension that you paid for electricity to condense during the on time. This can cut the efficiency by half and is not accounted for in the Energy Star Standard. The Florida Solar Energy Center explains this effect for central air conditioning and suggests some "hacks" to increase their moisture removal, but I cannot interest anyone at FSEC let alone EPA-Energy Star in this for dehumidifiers.
Well, I guess Energy Star has "caught wise" to this issue because they started notating in their ratings which units run the fan continuously and which ones don't. But those clever manufacturers, they are running long run-on times of the fan that does the same thing as the units that cycle the fan off.
The only thing I can guess is that the dehumidifier companies are having a hard time with refrigerant leaks, and maybe they think corrosion is a problem and the fan run on time is to prevent moisture from being in contact with the coils 100% of the time. Manufacturers used to have 5 year warranties on the "sealed" system that are now reduced to 1 year, and manufacturers do not honor their warranty. They will not repair a leaked unit, ever. They give you a coupon towards the purchase of a new unit that won't cover the recycling fee required for disposing of the old unit in many municipalities.
I don't know. No one from EPA, the manufacturers, to Focus on Energy will talk about any of this and what can be done. It is energy conservation theatre of acting like they care about the environment rather than doing anything effective.
For anyone out their that cares about electricity usage and wants to hack this, the suggestion from people who have tried is to find the humidity sensor, remove it from the cabinet and put it remote from the humidity given off by the wet coils. This lengthens the on/off cycle time which will reduce the fan run-on losses in efficiency more than the larger swings in room humidity reduce the unit efficiency.
What I do is look at a humidity gauge in the basement every night and program an hour or maybe two of continuous running using the timer mode, checking the number of pints (pounds) of water in the bucket against the electric use logged with a Kill-a-Watt. I can get as much as 4 lbs moisture removed per kWHr vs 1.8 with the normal automatic mode of the unit.
But gosh is this labor intensive. I am acting as one of the "valve boys" tending a Newcomen steam engine before the invention of valve gear. This is the freakin' 21st Century and I am operating the dehumidifier like an 18th Century mine pumping engine. Thanks, EPA!
My wife's favorite beverage is unsweetened cocoa powder stirred into hot milk. It leaves this chocolate residue on all the tea cups that doesn't come off.
When we first got married, the solution to my wife hand (re-)washing every single cup coming out of the dishwasher was Cascade Complete.
Or Cascade Complete used to do the job on the cocoa cups, but it stopped doing it, I blamed the dishwasher as getting old, but then I read about the phosphate thing.
You see, we have really hard water, but I got tired of paying for salt and lugging it into the basement and loading the softener, so I run un-softened water and just replace the water heater when it limes up with un-softened water rather than when it rusts out from softened water.
Do you think using a few teaspoons of TSP instead of sending tens of pounds of salt into the wastewater is a good tradeoff? Or does Gaia not negotiate?
I had this discussion about the "ethics" of using TSP during a dishwasher discussion with my neighbors who attend synagogue and observe the Holy Days. I suggested the TSP thing (haven't tried it yet myself) but warned that this has to be balanced against ones conscience regarding the Environment.
I was told, "Thanks for the tip and not a problem. We are supposed to write our sins down on a piece of paper on the Day of Atonement, and I can just add this one to the list . . ."
Men know that dishwashers sterilize the dishes because the dryer coil does double duty as a "hot water booster" to raise the water temperature to well above the pitiful lukewarm level that regulations allow for the water heater. Even if little flecks of dried food are still stuck to the dishes, those food particles are safe because they have been autoclaved.
Women, on the other hand, always manage to find those tiny flecks of dried food that are invisible to male visual receptors, and they will rewash every last dish that you carefully loaded into the dishwasher.
My wife has heard for the 100th time that I once dated the woman responsible for the lukewarm, bacterial-growing output of the water heater by helping draft the legislation meant to prevent kids from getting scalded from the hot water spigot. But dishes get washed by hand anyway.
Maybe its like a car wash where you have the Basic Wash that is programmed to leave all the road salt still sticking to your car up to the That Women Washing a Car in "Cool Hand Luke" level?
It is all the same wash only if you pay for the higher levels you get more neon lights that flash "drip cycle" and "spray on wax" or "Ooohhh, that gal doesn't know what she is doing . . ." to which Paul Newman snarls "she sure as heck does" and then he has to eat all of those hardboiled eggs to get back the respect of George Kennedy who is the ring leader among the prisoners in the chain gang.
B32!
What's a "smart phone"?
What does a Tesla use in highway cruise? About a third of a kWHr to the mile? If an efficient constant-speed fossil fuel generator can produce 12 kWHr per gallon of gasoline equivalent, the Tesla is getting about 36 MPG? People are claiming 50 MPG average usage from a Prius?
For all of the low drag coefficient and regen braking of the Tesla, the breakthrough with that vehicle is the large capacity battery.
On the other hand, some 40 years ago I knew an engineering professor who was doing EV conversions on vans using lead-acid batteries. He was claiming that the "round trip" from the wall outlet through the rectifier to charge the battery, and then to discharge the battery through the chopper (no inverter--he was using a DC motor) to the motor was about 50 percent efficient. In other words, say he charged the battery with 10 kWHr as read from his electric meter, he was getting 5 kWHr applied to the wheels.
The Tesla lithium battery is supposed to be more efficient than the lead-acid battery in the charge-discharge cycle? But a reasonably slippery car should go, what, 65 MPH on 12 kW (or less) at the wheels? This means that a Tesla should be using below .2 kWHr/mile on the open road but that it uses more than that is evidence that their charger-battery-inverter-motor efficiency is below 60 percent, which is in line with what the professor doing EV conversions was saying?
The Prius suffers from the same round-trip problem, but by being hybrid, much of the power goes directly to the wheels. The Chevy Volt suffers more from the round-trip problem, although at high speeds there is a mode with mechanical transmission of engine power to the wheels? I am told that in highway mode beyond the range of the battery pack, the gasoline efficiency of the Volt is unimpressive, in the mid 30's.
A reporter wrote about inmates in a prison in California and what their lives behind bars were like, remarking that all the inmates had cell phones even though they were forbidden.
You could tell what model cell phone a prisoner had by the bar of soap they had carved into a (ahem) "keeper." You see, they stored their cell phone "where the sun doesn't shine", and the shaped bar of soap was to reserve a space for the phone. The reporter than quipped, "I pity the man with a Galaxy S4 . . ."
What I never figured out from the article was, where do they keep the charging cord?
There is simply enormous potential for not using electricity in the first place and people are pushing the expensive solution of solar power generation,.
A dehumidifier is this device that people put in their basement with the best intentions of fighting dampness and the accompanying mildew, a device that is cheaply made in a Certain Country so the refrigerant leaks out, after which the dehumidifier runs constantly to effectively double the household energy usage only the dehumidifier isn't doing anything except act as a space heater, a device that no one these days will repair after the refrigerant leaks out because government regulations, only it doesn't matter because homeowners with the humidifier discharging to a floor drain that they don't have to empty the bucket don't check on the operation of this device or even know how to check.
Even if you keep tabs on your dehumidifier, if you run it on the humidistat control, the humidity setting can be wildly inaccurate and setting it to a "reasonable" level can have the unit run constantly at great expense in electric use, and even if you check it against a humidity gauge that you have checked against outdoor weather reports of temperature and humidity, most units today either run the fan continuously or have a long fan run-on time past when the humidistat clicks off, where you end up evaporating moisture clinging to the coils by surface tension amounting to about half the moisture condensed during the on-time part of the cycle. And this is for an Energy Star qualified unit. And the neither manufacturers nor Energy Star won't answer their e-mail when asked about this.
So we are to spend effectively 10's of thousands of dollars per house to generate the electricity to supply the energy wasted by a $200 dehumidifier?
I do not have any solar cells nor any exotic tech and don't do anything apart from 1) run the dehumidifier on a timer and empty the bucket manually, 2) use fluorescent lights, and 3) turn off stuff not is use, and my electric usage (I air condition, dehumidify, cook, and dry clothes electrically) runs about 220 kWHr/month whereas houses in the same neighborhood are using 4 times as much per month or more. The local power company lets you look up household energy use by address and I have checked.
as the audio had this piercing whine that rose and fell in pitch all the time (weeeeeeoooooooeeeeeeeooooooooo!).
. . . appear to believe in "drop bears."
Pacific Rim (the robot pilots have to "share their inner-most thoughts and feelings")
The Hunger Games
those Twilight movies
. . . 50 Shades of Grey?
women fail to understand . . . you!
The apple maggot fly (AMF) lays eggs and little tiny larvae burrow through it leaving brown tracks. I have no problem eating those apples, but most of those apples fall off the tree before I get to them, and the remaining apples rot after a short time in storage.
Acetamiprid has allowed me to have a halfway decent apple harvest from a home orchard for two years now. It doesn't seem to kill the adult flies so the fruit is still blemished, but it appears to kill the larvae as there are many fewer brown tracks and the apples keep in my cool basement until mid winter.
The alternatives are organophosphates, which are nerve gas precursors or pyrethroids, which are much more bee toxic.
But the categorical dismissal of the use of pesticides in growing fruit along with the high moderation points -- have people around here ever tried to plant an apple tree and get usable amounts of fruit from it?
When the Cold War was winding down, the National (Weapons) Labs were looking for something to do to justify their budget -- they branched out into alternative energy, environmental research, etc. Freeman Dyson was doing climate research before you were even born.
as there is a perfectly legal reason to detect an emissions test -- that the traction control and stability control doesn't go crazy.
You would think that if your kid was actually finding some entertainment in sweeping the living room that you would cut some slack to playing with the power switch to make a "cool" sound.
But I digress but only a little bit. The hydrocarbon and nuclear plants are backed up by brother hydrocarbon and nuclear plants. If one goes down and another takes its place, no one notices the difference. If wind cuts out, however, this miasma of partially burnt hydrocarbon fumes and radon gas permeates the land. The whole point of wind is to not burn hydrocarbons or split uranium atoms into dangerously radioactive elements, but it is too expensive to back up wind with excess wind capacity to prevent using those foul backup sources.
Of the "missing" half of emitted carbon, a bit less than half of that is the net carbon flux dissolved into the oceans. We know that by a really clever bit of mass-balance accounting. We can determine to total CO2 emissions from accurate quantification of the ongoing depletion in atmospheric O2. Dissolving CO2 into the ocean in inorganic form does not change O2. Photosynthesis takes up CO2 and in the process releases back O2, but this takes place on a different slope as combustion of fossil fuel on the plot of atmospheric O2 against CO2. The reason for that is that fossil fuels are largely pure hydrocarbons whereas plant matter -- cellulose, lipids -- incorporates substantial oxygen.
So the biosphere, and someone can correct me on this, it is widely regarded that we are talking about the terrestrial biosphere, is soaking up fully one quarter of the emitted CO2. We are talking mass balance here -- there is nowhere else for it to go.
That is pretty much the charitable explanation that Feynman offered in his notorious public talk on this subject.
That and confirmation bias. The classic example is Millikan's initial but not-quite-accurate measurement of the charge of an electron followed by subsequent results that "drifted" slowly but surely to the more modern measurement value.
Gee, Millikan is way off, but I can't publish this, I need to go over my apparatus and procedures to find what is wrong. In that way, only small changes from the "accepted" value get published until converging on a more accurate value.
Feynman was as much as saying that research in behavioral psychology was a Cargo Cult -- going through the motions that brought the planes and ships to our island without understanding that the arrival of the planes and ships had something to do with a war fought far from the horizon of the island and that actions taken by people on the island have no influence on when that war started, how long it continued, and when it ended.
He pretty much gives the benefit of the doubt on fraud, but he calls them out on experimental control, giving the example of one investigator going to the trouble to isolate the cues rats were relying upon in a maze experiment, finding it to be the sounds their feet made on the wooden boards of the maze floor, suppressing that sound by placing the maze box in sound-dampening sand, and finding the behavior of the rats to be entirely different when deprived of that cue. The amazing thing, to Feynman, was that setting the maze in sand was never adopted by subsequent studies -- the scientists in that "community" just plain didn't care.