Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:
::In article ,
:: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
::
:::In article ,
::: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:::
::::In article ,
:::: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
::::
:::::In article ,
::::: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:::::
::::::Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth
:and
::kept the
::::::level from growing?
:::::
:::::Then why doesn't the rate of growth of the 'current level'
correlate
:::::to human output?
:::::
:::::Sinks -- plants, oceans. But they obviously are not absorbing it
all.
::::
::::Yep. It's called 'dynamic equilibrium'. You claim to teach
::::chemistry. Go look it up.
::::
::::If we were in equilibrium, CO2 wouldn't be increasing. You look that
:up.
:::
:::You don't know what the word 'dynamic' means?
:::
:::Yes. A is going to B and B is going to A; the overall system isn't
:changing
:::however. As opposed to 'static' equilibrium, in which neither A nor B is
::doing
:::anything. Two rocks are pretty much in static equilibrium; N2 and H2 in
:::equilibrium with NH3 is a dynamic equilibrium.
::
::And what happens when you pour in more of one species? OVER TIME the
::other species change and equilibrium recurs.
::
::Yes, but you don't get the original concentrations -- e.g., if you add N2,
::some but not all of it is converted to NH3. Even if you assume CO2 is in
::equilibrium (a dubious assumption), not all of it the added CO2 will get
:taken
::up.
:
:How do you know?
:
:Because if NH3 increases and N2 comes back to the same, Q is no longer equal
:to K -- you're no longer at equilibrium.

You're stretching an analogy all out of shape, Lloyd.

No, this is the explanation of equilibrium in any freshman text book.


:If you're going to discuss equilibrium, pick up a gen chem book and read
about
:it first.

I hardly need to, since I studied all that stuff decades ago, back
when I was a chem major. That's why I know you're such a blithering
idiot as a chem prof.

Yeah, sure. So did you forget all the stuff about equilibrium, or did you
never learn it in the first place?


::Even your quite simple
::example should make it plain to you why your silly insistence that "if
::plants could absorb it they already would and we wouldn't see
::anything" is stupid.
::
::Let me try here.
::
::Suppose we have a system that will monitor the pH of a solution and
::add base whenever the solution becomes acidic. The rate at which the
::system can add base is, of course, limited, and let us further suppose
::that the feedback loop of the response system is not instantaneous.
::
::Now start adding acid to the solution. The solution will become
::acidic, even though there is a feedback system in place that will make
::it neutral over time because there is a time lag in the feedback
::mechanism. If you add acid at an increasing rate, the solution will
::stay acidic even though much of the acid is being neutralized and the
::rate at which base is being added will also accelerate. If you slow
::the rate at which acid is being added, the feedback system will 'catch
::up' and perhaps even overshoot, driving the system to be base.
::
::This is what we see with plant growth and atmospheric CO2. Now that's
::a simple enough explanation that I would expect even a high school
::freshman to be able to get it.
::
::I don't expect you to.
::
:::::As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's
:that
:::::happening and do you seriously think it has no effect?
:::::
:::::Yet plant growth cannot even absorb all the added CO2 humans are
utting
:ut
:::::now.
::::
::::How do you arrive at that conclusion?
::::
:::uh, the fact that CO2 is up 30%?
:::
:::Duh. Meaningless statement. You claim to be a scientist. Tell us
:::why it's a meaningless statement.
:::
:::Gee, Fred, since you seem to be all-knowing, why don't you tell us.
::
::Obvious to anyone with two brain cells, Lloyd, but you apparently
::don't understand it. CO2 is up 30% OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD? What was
::human CO2 output doing during this same period?
::
::It's well known that there all sinks which are absorbing some of the added
::CO2. But nobody who looks at the science thinks all the added CO2 will
ever
::be absorbed (OK, maybe on a million-years time scale).
:
:Why is that? After all, the CO2 is coming from somewhere, isn't it?
:
:Yes, from burning fossil fuels. That CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere
:millions of years ago, and the atmosphere CO2 reached a new equilibrium.
Now
:we're adding that CO2 back to it.

And where did it come from in the first place and how did it get all
tied up in fossil fuels again? Something about uptake and
sequestration by plants and animals, perhaps?


Yes, millions of years ago, so the atmosphere came to a new equilibrium. It
cannot come to one in 100 years.

:So far, your case is as weak as the one you argue against. All you
:have is your own assertion, which, given your past record, is pretty
:questionable as a reliable source.
:
:No, my case is based on science. I suggest you read about equilibrium in a
:good gen chem textbook.

Your case is based on having your head firmly up and locked. I'd
suggest you read up on equilibrium in that same sort of book. I can
suggest a few, if you'd like.

Since you don't understand LeChatlier's principle, I doubt you could suggest
anything scientific.


::Until you have the details, it's just bumper sticker 'thinking'.
::Unfortunately, that seems to be the level at which you operate, so you
::do more damage to your own causes among people who actually think than
::someone who opposes your positions ever could.
::
:::::Why do you think it will in the future?
::::
::::Who said I did? Why do you think it can't or won't?
::::
::::Read up on dynamic equilibria, examine the rate of CO2 output by
year,
::::and then try engaging your brain.
::::
::::CO2 is increasing -- fact. Therefore, plants are not absorbing all
the
::CO2
::
::See above. Anyone with any intelligence at all ought to recognize
::just how fallacious your statements are at this point.
::
::You won't.

See what I mean?