Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

In article ,


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.

Yes. Linearly. But emission increase at accelarating rate. This proves
that at higher CO2 partial pressure, the rate of co2 removal from
athmosphere increases.

There is absolutely no evidence plants will ever absorb enough to bring this
back down to where it was 150 years ago.

Plants will remove co2 from air until they starve, unless humans or
nature add some co2 in to the athmosphere. The starvation partial
pressure is about 280 ppm. If you go below that, ultimately plants die,
and stop consuming co2.

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.

Sure they can.

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.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:13:09 +0200, in a place far, far away, Jotuni
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

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.

Yes, I suspect that Lloyd gets his botanical biology knowledge from
the DNC talking points faxes, like he does everything else.

(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

: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.

No, they are not. The increase rate of atmospheric CO2 appears to be
LINEAR CONSTANT. The CO2 emission rate of the human race isn't even
close to being linear over the same time period.

Add 'correlation' to those concepts you need more work on. Check with
your Mathematics Department.

: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!

Oh, I see. You'll just ignore the facts and lie. A bit blatant, even
for you, 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:
::
:::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. 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 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.

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?

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.

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

(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

: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.

And human CO2 output has been doing what during those same 150 years,
Lloyd? It's been going up with an increasing rate that is much, MUCH
steeper than "fairly linearly".

Why the lack of correlation?

:There is absolutely no evidence plants will ever absorb enough to bring this
:back down to where it was 150 years ago.

Nor is there any evidence that they won't. Nor do we need them to,
for that matter.

: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.

Unknown, frankly. It all *CAME* from plants and animals, so
presumably there's a way it can go back into plants and animals.

: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.


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

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?

As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's that
happening and do you seriously think it has no effect?

Carbon-Di-Oxide has Carbon and Oxygen. Photosynthesis makes this into
Carbo-Hydrates with the addition of water Di-Hydrogen-Oxide (H2O).

Technically it makes glucose, sugar.

Sugar is not in short supply in plants. Most plant fibers, cotton and
wood for example, is cellulose and lignins, both made from sugar and
water.

Without Nitrogen for DNA/RNA, vitamins, hormones, enzymes, proteins,
suger just bulks up a plant without giving it essential nutrients.

Without Phosporus, making CAMP, BTP and ATP, living cells have no
energy.

Bulking up mass is not the same as fertilizing. Force-feeding sugars to
plants by excess abundance skews the ratios of carbs to nutrients. Just
like one out of fat NYC people is diabetic from sugar overload, so is
nature being foorcefed a sugar overload.

Carb laden plants are more attractive to pests. The predators get a
fast sugar energy fix and can replicate at rates faster than the plants
can deter them. The nutrients required for complex chemicals to make
pesticide toxins and repellant tastes or odors are diluted by the
sugars.

Carbo-heavy plants are no cause for celebration -- you are accelorating
the clallopse of the ecosystems by force feeding you filty tailpipes to
nature.

The sugar-rich carbo-heavy plant mass is reduced faster as well by soil
bacteria. The sequestration may be as short as a few months and the CO2
is back in the air again.

A person as ignorant of basic biology, biochemistry and ecology ought
not be speaking up at science groups. You should restrain yourself to
filling the holes in your knowledge by humbly asking questions.

To paraphrase - "increased plant growth will absorb all the excess CO2
so global warming won't be a problem". I'd like to see some links and
cites to/of scientific studies showing this to be true. Same for the
claim that future coal seams are being laid down and this form of
natural sequestering of CO2 is actually taking place on a scale
significant enough to bring down atmospheric levels of CO2. Meanwhile
those levels are continuing to rise and the rate of increase is itself
increasing. Clearing of forests goes on, with these eliminated sinks
releasing yet more CO2. Where is all this extra plant growth occurring?
Sure there are gaps in Climate science's konowlidge but they aren't
gaping chasms anymore.
Sorry but I find this excessive focus on a single element of a complex
system without citing any credible, reputable sources to be
unconvincing and more like a diversion from the solid work done within
a framework of scientific bodies that have long histories of finding
out how things really work.

To paraphrase - "increased plant growth will absorb all the excess CO2
so global warming won't be a problem". I'd like to see some links and
cites to/of scientific studies showing this to be true. Same for the
claim that future coal seams are being laid down and this form of
natural sequestering of CO2 is actually taking place on a scale
significant enough to bring down atmospheric levels of CO2. Meanwhile
those levels are continuing to rise and the rate of increase is itself
increasing. Clearing of forests goes on, with these eliminated sinks
releasing yet more CO2. Where is all this extra plant growth occurring?
Sure there are gaps in Climate science's konowlidge but they aren't
gaping chasms anymore.
Sorry but I find this excessive focus on a single element of a complex
system without citing any credible, reputable sources to be
unconvincing and more like a diversion from the solid work done within
a framework of scientific bodies that have long histories of finding
out how things really work.
Ken

"Dave Head" wrote in message
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.

Insufficeint time remains at existing rates of CO2 production.

"bill" wrote
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.

It's nto a question of delay, but how rapid the response. Individual
plants respond immediately to additional CO2 of course They respond in real
time. Add more CO2 and you will slightly increase their rate of uptake.
This has all been measured in the lab.

Now if your position is tha through some generational process individual
plants will obsorb more CO2 than their parents, then you are not talking
science but Lemarkism which has been long discredited as bunk.

The entire biosphere on the other hand can have a longer delay associated
iwth it, and that delay has been measured as well. It's something around 8
years. Long enough for temporate forests to reach semi-maturity.


"bill" wrote
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.

No, what you would see with a constant rate of emission is a cycloid chase
function approximating an inverse exponential. The curve of concentration
would have a limiting concentration and approach it as a limit.

However, emission rates are not static, and the biosphere is not capable of
the rate of uptake required to counter the existing rates of emission. With
the kown relaxation time, the biosphere would already be uptaking virtually
all of the emissions.