Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

"David Ball" wrote
What I want to know is why the local government of New Orleans left
all those busses parked when they could have evacuated as many people
as were in the SuperDome....

Who was going to drive? The drivers had been evacuated. Are you
suggesting that they just should have left the keys in the ignition and the
gates open?

What I would like to know is why New Orleans residents were prevented
from leaving the city at gunpoint by the police forces from surrounding
areas.

What I would like to know is why Bush claimed that No one predicted that
the levies would break, when it was common knowledge that they probably
would.

What I would like to know is why the AmeriKKKan people continue to allow
Bush's head to remain attached to the rest of his body.

(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:
::That wasn't what I asked. If plants growing will absorb all the CO2, why
::haven't they done so already? Why is CO2 still increasing?
:
:Why does your car ever skid, since you are going to engage in
:corrective steering?
:
:But if corrective steering could prevent skids, we wouldn't see skids.

But it can prevent you from going in the ditch, yet you still don't
just stay in your lane because corrective steering exists.

:Similarly, if plant growth could prevent increasing CO2, we wouldn't see
:increasing CO2.

Of course you would. Once again, look up 'dynamic equilibrium' and
'feedback loop' and factor in time.

:You're this stupid and claim to teach science? Small wonder things
:are going to hell in a hand basket.
:
:Yeah, sure. Repeating 8th grade twice doesn't make you any smarter.

Well, apparently not, if you are any indication.

:Why doesn't the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 correlate to the
:rate of increase in CO2 emissions? It's not even CLOSE, Lloyd. Why
:not?
:
:Yes it is. They go up hand in hand.

Go look it up. Increase in atmospheric CO2 has been pretty well
constant while human output of CO2 has been increasing dramatically.

How do you explain that? Why didn't the rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2 accelerate in the same way that human output of CO2
did? Why don't the rates on the curves correlate?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:
::In article ,
:: Fred J. McCall wrote:
::"Alastair McDonald" k
::wrote:
::
:::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
om...
::: "Alastair McDonald" k
::: wrote:
::: :
::: :"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
::: oups.com...
::: : "BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
::: : levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
::: : - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
::: :
::: : The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
::: : UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
::: : please.
::: :
::: :Try this link then.
:::
::: I would have thought the phrase "BBC News has learned" would qualify
::: more as an oxymoron than as anything else.
:::
::: :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr..._trend_mlo.png
::: :and this
::: :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...2_data_mlo.png
:::
::: Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
::: the way).
:::
::: What's the measure look like where people live?
:::
:::Much worse. That is why the measurements were done on top of a
:::mountain, in the middle of the ocean, near the equator, well away
:::from the distorting effects of man and vegetation.
::
::But right smack in the middle of an active volcano which belches CO2?
::
::Uh, quite wrong.
:
:Oh? Which part do you think is wrong, that it isn't an active volcano
:or that volcanoes don't put out CO2?
:
:That the volcano isn't affecting the measurements, as others have explained.

There is a difference between 'claimed' and 'explained'.

Oh, I see, so NOTHING was wrong.

Typical Lloyd....

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

(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?

::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 putting out
::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.

::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 --
:logic.

Go study 'feedback loops', Lloyd.

:Perhaps if Rush or Sean said it, you'd believe it.

Perhaps if you could pull your head out and actually separate your
stupid political stereotypes from issues you could hold a real
discussion of something.

Given your track record, I'm not holding my breath.

Hint: I don't watch either one.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

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

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:
::That wasn't what I asked. If plants growing will absorb all the CO2, why
::haven't they done so already? Why is CO2 still increasing?
:
:Why does your car ever skid, since you are going to engage in
:corrective steering?
:
:But if corrective steering could prevent skids, we wouldn't see skids.

But it can prevent you from going in the ditch, yet you still don't
just stay in your lane because corrective steering exists.

:Similarly, if plant growth could prevent increasing CO2, we wouldn't see
:increasing CO2.

Of course you would. Once again, look up 'dynamic equilibrium' and
'feedback loop' and factor in time.

:You're this stupid and claim to teach science? Small wonder things
:are going to hell in a hand basket.
:
:Yeah, sure. Repeating 8th grade twice doesn't make you any smarter.

Well, apparently not, if you are any indication.

:Why doesn't the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 correlate to the
:rate of increase in CO2 emissions? It's not even CLOSE, Lloyd. Why
:not?
:
:Yes it is. They go up hand in hand.

Go look it up. Increase in atmospheric CO2 has been pretty well
constant while human output of CO2 has been increasing dramatically.


No, both are increasing; the two curves are very well correlated.

How do you explain that? Why didn't the rate of increase in
atmospheric CO2 accelerate in the same way that human output of CO2
did? Why don't the rates on the curves correlate?


Why doesn't 1 + 2 = 3? Gee, it does!

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.


::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 putting
out
::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.


::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
--
:logic.

Go study 'feedback loops', Lloyd.

Fred, I don't know how to make this any simpler: If plants can absorb all the
added CO2, they would be doing so now. They're not.


:Perhaps if Rush or Sean said it, you'd believe it.

Perhaps if you could pull your head out and actually separate your
stupid political stereotypes from issues you could hold a real
discussion of something.

Given your track record, I'm not holding my breath.

Hint: I don't watch either one.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
richard schumacher wrote:

Burning stuff is for cavemen.

We're so sorry, we didn't know you guys were still around.

"I'll take the roast duck with mango Salsa."

wrote:
bill wrote:
Windmills work (when they are not blocked by environmentalists),
nuclear works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), hydro
works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), waste-energy works
(when it is not blocked by environmentalists), there are even solar
systems that work (direct pv isn't one of them) (when it is not blocked
by environmentalists).

Prove these Evil Environmentalists TM are behind are lack of green
technologies.

Windmills suffer from the NIMBY problem, more than EE TM, though there
are quite a few non-casino owning Indian reservations that would love
to exploit all that wind on their land to get vitally need cash.

Hydro has been overdone and killing a significant amount of the fish in
the river does have bad economic effects on real people. Not people
you probably care about, but real people nonetheless.

Nuclear got hit by the one-two punch of Three Mile Island and The China
Syndrome and the really bad disaster in Chernobyl, so that perfectly
ordinary non-EE TM types are suspicious of official pronouncements,
especially when nobody is making rational plans for dealing with the
waste.

Even the Changing World Technologies efforts to turn biological refuse
into oil has gotten hit by NIMBY complaints.

By the way, exactly what EE TM groups have blocked solar technologies?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

bill wrote:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

I hope you're not pretending that the Cato Institute is an
Environmental organization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

I hope you're not pretending that the Cato Institute is an
Environmental organization.

no, I am not. out of curiosity, did you read the article, or just
the url?