Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

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?

The routine culprits. attempts by EE TM groups to block pv
development are lumped in with the semi-conductor industry. Any time
you see greenpeace going after hp or ge, or anyone like that, they are
going after the same facilities that will produce pv cells.
Also, while everyone loves PV on rooftops, no one seems to like it
in it's most useful application, deserts. I always love hearing how
"delicate" desert eco-systems are, WHAT eco-system?? so it has the
same problem as everythng else, as you have so efficiently pointed out,
NIMBY.

I wonder what the total aquatic bio-mass impact of a hydro dam is.
I understand that it is bad for river fish, but do we not get more
lake-fish from the new eco-system? I understand that a hydro dam
destroys the existing wetlands, but doesn't it create new wetlands
around the perimeter of the new lake? And what about the
sediment/polutant removal that the new lakes provide, shouldn't that be
taken into account?

:::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.

Lloyd. for someone who claims to be a scientist, you really are
too fond of talking about things you know nothing about.
The plants absorb more carbon in an environment with a higher
concentration of it. thus an increase in the carbon released into the
atmosphere generates a LAGGING acceleration of plant growth, with the
attendent co2 removal. The concentration increases, typically with a
little overshoot, and then returns to an equilibrium value higher than
the original value. This is assuming a constant addition, we are
unlikely to see the co2 level in the atmosphere level off until after
we stop releasing it at an ever-accelerating rate. To put it another
way, plants are not telepathic, they cannot respond before the stimulus.

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:

I didn't say it was all wrong. Go get a dictionary, and look up the
words "most" and "all."

Any particular aspects you want to claim as "wrong"? Or is it just the
same as with reporting about Iraq where you claimed most of it was
inaacurate and anyways simply made up by reporters never leaving hotel
lobbies?

You are such a losing liar, Rand.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Plants absorb CO2 but plants also release CO2, ie they die and
decompose sooner or later or end up burned. For Plants to absorb all
the increase of CO2 humans produce the overall mass of living plant
matter has to rise. A Lot. This doesn't appear to be occurring. The
assumption that they will "catch up" with the increase is, like most
skeptic arguments pretty poor and not in line with observed facts. It
only sounds reasonable in the absence of knowledge of the subject.
Ken

On 23 Mar 2006 18:35:49 -0800, "Ken" wrote:

Plants absorb CO2 but plants also release CO2, ie they die and
decompose sooner or later or end up burned. For Plants to absorb all
the increase of CO2 humans produce the overall mass of living plant
matter has to rise. A Lot. This doesn't appear to be occurring. The
assumption that they will "catch up" with the increase is, like most
skeptic arguments pretty poor and not in line with observed facts. It
only sounds reasonable in the absence of knowledge of the subject.
Ken

Once upon a time vast forests decomposed and left behind what are now coal
seams. This mechansim will have to happen again if the plants are going to be
able to clense the earth of the excess CO2 that exists in the air at present.

DPH

Please remove sci.geo.geology from followups. This subthread is not
relevant to geology.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:32:25 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:

I didn't say it was all wrong. Go get a dictionary, and look up the
words "most" and "all."

Any particular aspects you want to claim as "wrong"?

With not context, this is an asinine question.

In article .com,
"bill" 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.

Lloyd. for someone who claims to be a scientist, you really are
too fond of talking about things you know nothing about.
The plants absorb more carbon in an environment with a higher
concentration of it. thus an increase in the carbon released into the
atmosphere generates a LAGGING acceleration of plant growth, with the
attendent co2 removal.

Lagging? In 150 years of CO2 emissions, the CO2 is rising, fairly linearly.
There is absolutely no evidence plants will ever absorb enough to bring this
back down to where it was 150 years ago.


The concentration increases, typically with a
little overshoot, and then returns to an equilibrium value higher than
the original value.

So plants cannot absorb all the added CO2.

This is assuming a constant addition, we are
unlikely to see the co2 level in the atmosphere level off until after
we stop releasing it at an ever-accelerating rate. To put it another
way, plants are not telepathic, they cannot respond before the stimulus.

In article .com,
"Ken" wrote:

Plants absorb CO2 but plants also release CO2, ie they die and
decompose sooner or later or end up burned. For Plants to absorb all
the increase of CO2 humans produce the overall mass of living plant
matter has to rise. A Lot. This doesn't appear to be occurring.

It is propably occurring all the time. The missing sink is propably
soil. Plants die, but do not compose totally. Carbon remains in soil,
that is the black fertile soil. Without carbon, soil is just fine
mineral particles.

The
assumption that they will "catch up" with the increase is, like most
skeptic arguments pretty poor and not in line with observed facts. It
only sounds reasonable in the absence of knowledge of the subject.
Ken

:::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.

Lloyd. for someone who claims to be a scientist, you really are
too fond of talking about things you know nothing about.
The plants absorb more carbon in an environment with a higher
concentration of it. thus an increase in the carbon released into the
atmosphere generates a LAGGING acceleration of plant growth, with the
attendent co2 removal.

Lagging? In 150 years of CO2 emissions, the CO2 is rising, fairly linearly.
There is absolutely no evidence plants will ever absorb enough to bring this
back down to where it was 150 years ago.

AH... A linear increase with an exponentially increasing input,
sounds like there is a response somewhere.... Any clue where?

The concentration increases, typically with a
little overshoot, and then returns to an equilibrium value higher than
the original value.

So plants cannot absorb all the added CO2.

As long as the release continues to increase, equilibrium will not
be attained. once the output stabilizes, the eco-system will come to
an equilibrium. granted at a higher concentration than if we were
releasing nothing at all.
This is really basic stuff, I would think even you could grasp it.


This is assuming a constant addition, we are
unlikely to see the co2 level in the atmosphere level off until after
we stop releasing it at an ever-accelerating rate. To put it another
way, plants are not telepathic, they cannot respond before the stimulus.