There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[Ashock]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91230184221.htm

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

[Jester]

The article abstract is as follows:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

I'd have to read the paper to get more than a vague hint of what it actually demonstrates, but there are at least a couple things that pop out at me. First, the error bars are huge - plus or minus 1.4% per decade means the range is anywhere from an 11% decrease to a 34% increase, roughly speaking. Second, if you start your analysis in 1850, when emissions were a tiny fraction of what they are now, I suspect that would give you a "decadal average" that is very small, for obvious reasons - the later (high pollution, CO2 heavy ocean) decades are washed out by earlier (low pollution, CO2 light ocean) ones. The article, though not the abstract, suggests they examine this possibility in the paper. Third, the results are positive, not zero. Even at 0.7% per decade, over the 16 decades between then and now, that's about an 11% increase, which is not trivial. If we intend to continue polluting, I'm not sure even that slow rate would be acceptable.

The paper itself is no doubt more informative - I'll see if I have access to it somehow. Thanks for the reference!

-Jester

Afterthought: Found the paper - most of it is far over my head. The major issues appear to be understanding the contribution of land use, and the uncertainties in the data making any result highly dependent on the specific data and methods used, and not robust across various analyses.

Edit: Discussion now up at Realclimate, links over there.

[Zenda]

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

If you are trying to make a point with this, you should be able to understand it first.

So, the *fraction* of airborne CO2 has not increased. That says nothing about the absolute amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. It means that if CO2 levels have risen, a lot has also gone into the oceans and other deposits. That's no suprise, is it? Nature is all about equilibriums. It does make things extra worse when those deposits loose some of their storing capacity, ofcourse, as the article indicated.

[kandrathe]

It does make things extra worse when those deposits loose some of their storing capacity, ofcourse, as the article indicated.

Wait. Think about this first. How does the ocean sequester carbon? Yes, there is an increase in carbonic acids, but they are then available for marine and plant life to convert into carbon bearing minerals (phytoplankton, shells, bones, corals, hydrates, etc). So, now, how would this process reach a storing capacity? I could see that the rate of storage might reach a limit, however, I don't think there is a limit on the size of coral reefs, hydrates, or the detritus of dead organisms that might accumulate on the ocean floor.

Now, consider, terrestrial sequestration. It is the same issue. We are reducing the amount of land used to naturally sequester carbon, however, farm land in fact converts CO2 through plants into denser forms which are transported away from that area. In many areas, this requires the use of petrochemicals to re-fertilize the land. Perhaps the issue would be that these farm products are too quickly returned back into CO2 through respiration, decomposition, ignition, or other chemical processes. However, again, I fail to see how soil can reach a limit in carbon sequestration lest the entirety be akin to peat bogs and ultra rich soil (quite the opposite in fact). I would say, in fact, we have lowered the normal carbon sequestration of the land well below what it is capable of bearing. I believe the worldwide practice of sound land management techniques would allow a very large increase in sequestration of atmospheric CO2, coupled with a large increase in land fertility.

[Zenda]

Think about this first.

Yes, let's do that. The article tells us that the fraction of CO2 that is airborne doesn't change, but that some of the scientific models that have been used to predict global warming presume otherwise. It was thought earlier that deposited CO2 would 'lag behind', so that the levels in the atmosphere would decrease naturally, to some point, even if we did nothing about it. Now we learn there is no lagging. No buffer to rely on.

Btw, it doesn't matter how limitless the capacity for natural sequestering is. Before that capacity will be used, more CO2 will have to be in the atmosphere first. That's what an equilibrium is all about.

I don't think there is a limit on the size of coral reefs

There is, because it can grow only at certain depths, but that is beside the point. Rising sea levels would be very harmful to existing coral, though, and we all know it doesn't grow fast.

I believe the worldwide practice of sound land management techniques would allow a very large increase in sequestration of atmospheric CO2

Well, so do I, and many other people. After all, a big part of the problem comes from mismanagement. It's a bit odd, though, to hear this from you. Don't you think that logging companies, once freed from the chains of government and no longer hindered by economy-killing preservation laws, would maximise profits by massive deforestation? Like they do now?

[Jester]

Coral reefs are an interesting example, because as the earth warms and the oceans acidify, they don't grow, they die. Peat bogs are an even worse example - they actually release carbon and methane as the earth warms, rather than absorbing it. So, I'm not sanguine about these things counterbalancing our emissions.

Existing species and ecosystems are adapted to equilibrium conditions from before human changes. If changes are sudden and severe enough, entire ecosystems could start to crash catastrophically. I'm generally a believer in the resilience and adaptation of the biosphere, but there's no guarantee that things won't get worse before they get better. Nor is there any guarantee that we're going to like the results of adaptation.

The whole mess also takes a huge amount of time to sort out. Carbon will accumulate in the places it flows naturally to first - the air and the oceans. Other processes will slowly pull carbon out and sequester it, but not quickly. In the meantime (on a geological scale - hundreds or thousands of years) we'll have to live with the effects of increased CO2.

-Jester

[Zenda]

or the detritus of dead organisms that might accumulate on the ocean floor

There is no such accumulation. Everything gets eaten, and is eventually swept back up to the surface as krill and other animals, to serve as food for whales and small fish (which get eaten in turn).

The only way to really lower CO2 levels is to take lots of it *out* of natural cycles. Having it temporary in some invisible part of a cycle doesn't help. It took extreme circumstances (providing rapid enclosure of vegetable material, before it had the chance to rot, on a very large scale) to produce coal and oil. This took away CO2, and allowed for other natural circumstances. At the moment, we are almost finished bringing those deposits back into our environment, recreating the 'comfortable' warm earth from long ago. And we did it in a few years, not millions. Aren't we good?

[kandrathe]

There is no such accumulation. Everything gets eaten, and is eventually swept back up to the surface as krill and other animals, to serve as food for whales and small fish (which get eaten in turn).

If that statement were true, then we would have no problem in the first place. Where do you think kerogen (type I) comes from? I guess we'd still be burning coal from other types of kerogen deposits, but you get the gist. Not everything gets eaten, lots of stuff gets buried under the rain of waste, sediments, ash, and dead organisms from above.

Of particular interest to me was this statement I found in describing the formation of various kerogens; "Most of the biomass that eventually becomes petroleum is contributed by the bacteria and protists that decompose the primary matter, not the primary matter itself. However, the lignin in this kerogen decomposes to form phenolic compounds that are toxic to bacteria and protists. Without this extra input, it will only become methane and/or coal."

Meaning that the decomposition process is what produces the lipids which can accumulate into kerogen in the first place.

The only way to really lower CO2 levels is to take lots of it *out* of natural cycles. Having it temporary in some invisible part of a cycle doesn't help.

What? Unless we send it into orbit, it's in the natural cycle. Of course it helps to sequester carbon however long in whatever form we can. In fact, the more invisible and especially long term processes like those of deep oceans would help immensely.

It took extreme circumstances (providing rapid enclosure of vegetable material, before it had the chance to rot, on a very large scale) to produce coal and oil. This took away CO2, and allowed for other natural circumstances. At the moment, we are almost finished bringing those deposits back into our environment, recreating the 'comfortable' warm earth from long ago. And we did it in a few years, not millions. Aren't we good?

I don't think with the masses of oil we've found that it could have been rapidly produced. Anoxic? Yes. Earth was warmer, but then again the moon was twice as close. Who knows what the sun was doing at that time? Also, we are finished bring the easiest stuff out, but I would hazard to state that most petroleum and pseudo-petroleum minerals that ever existed are left untouched. Theorizing that our release of carbon from its former sequestration will return the earth to a very warm wet place is wild speculation at best. It's a possibility, just as it might be that we'd all experience warmer winters, and slightly warmer wetter summers. This is not necessarily a bad change if it results in our needing less fuel in winter months, and better growing conditions for our crops. However, its a cosmic crap shoot, where the consequences of being wrong are dire indeed. Of course, most people believe that global warming wiped out New Orleans, rather than human stupidity. I expect they will over-react in fear as they've always done until our populations are once again decimated and those that remain will begin overpopulating the planet once again.

[Zenda]

Not everything gets eaten, lots of stuff gets buried under the rain of waste, sediments, ash, and dead organisms from above.

You don't seriously believe that fossile fuels are continuously created from dead organisms on the ocean floors, do you? How thick would that layer be by now?

Regardless which fossile fuels you are talking about, they can only form under oxygen-free circumstances. Otherwise, things would simply rot and be absorbed. Ocean floors are not devoid of oxygen, under normal conditions.

Unless we send it into orbit, it's in the natural cycle.

No, it's not. Fossile fuel does not automatically decompose to replenish CO2 levels if those drop too low, nor does it absorb CO2 if levels get too high.

but then again the moon was twice as close.

Oh, really?

This is not necessarily a bad change if it results in our needing less fuel in winter months, and better growing conditions for our crops.

Are you planning to move to Canada? That's about the only region in the world that would benefit like that. Unfortunately, the 750 million people who rely on cassave are not so lucky. (link)

[kandrathe]

You don't seriously believe that fossile fuels are continuously created from dead organisms on the ocean floors, do you? How thick would that layer be by now?

Yes, I believe that the same processes that created petroleum are working, however, the decaying algae of today won't be ready for a many millennia.

Regardless which fossile fuels you are talking about, they can only form under oxygen-free circumstances. Otherwise, things would simply rot and be absorbed. Ocean floors are not devoid of oxygen, under normal conditions.

That is what anoxic means. Is it possible that there are places where the ocean mud is devoid of enough oxygen to prevent decomposition? What do we know about the deep ocean floor sediments? How about 20 feet under the muck? How about being buried under the ash of volcanoes?

No, it's not. Fossile fuel does not automatically decompose to replenish CO2 levels if those drop too low, nor does it absorb CO2 if levels get too high.

I did not say that it does. The natural cycle is not limited to "fossil fuels". It involves the atmosphere, and the ocean, and terrestrial soils and plants. These are things that interact in very complex ways, which we are beginning to understand and appreciate. Fossil fuels are one by product of this interaction, just as is granite, clay, sandstone, graphite, calcium carbonate, or diatomite.

Oh, really?

Yes. The moon is drifting away from the Earth at a rate of about 4 cm/yr.

Are you planning to move to Canada? That's about the only region in the world that would benefit like that. Unfortunately, the 750 million people who rely on cassave are not so lucky.

The only difference between Canada and where I live is which hockey team we cheer for.

From your link, "Cassava is poor in nutrients and contains high levels of cyanogenic glycosides that break down to release toxic hydrogen cyanide when damaged."

Other studies suggest; Such as at the University of Florida, elevated CO2 levels are stimulating rice growth and grain yield by factors of 30 to 40 percent. "We get increased carbon uptake through photosynthesis," said Dr. Jeffrey Baker, of the UF Agronomy Department. "We also get a decline in total water use, and all this translates into an increase in grain yield."

So what is bad for cassava, and tapioca seems to be better for fruits, vegetables, and rice. Perhaps using cassava leaves as a protein substitute is a bad idea. Every fall I'm swimming in acorns, but I leave them for the squirrels.

[Jester]

The moon is drifting away from the Earth at a rate of about 4 cm/yr.

By my back of the envelope calculations, in order for the moon to have drifted half its current distance from the earth at that rate, it would have taken around 19 billion years. The earth is only about 4.5 billion years old.

I know nothing about this topic. But that seems odd.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

By my back of the envelope calculations, in order for the moon to have drifted half its current distance from the earth at that rate, it would have taken around 19 billion years. The earth is only about 4.5 billion years old.

Maybe not half, but about 1500 miles every 60 million years, depending on which pre-hysterical, er, I mean prehistorical period you want to compare with. I was actually thinking of its apparent size in the night sky. It was much brighter and loomed much larger in the sky back during the Eocene.

[Zenda]

Yes, I believe that the same processes that created petroleum are working, however, the decaying algae of today won't be ready for a many millennia.

Funny, how you seem to think that a mere 4 cm/year is enough to cover 182.000 km in something like 60 million years, but that steady accumulation of matter on ocean floors would not be enough to fill up 4 kilometers in the same time.

Is it possible that there are places where the ocean mud is devoid of enough oxygen to prevent decomposition?

Yes, there are such places. Temporary. Not long enough to complete the process.

What do we know about the deep ocean floor sediments?

That it's not made of organic matter.

How about 20 feet under the muck?

And who puts it there?

How about being buried under the ash of volcanoes?

Yes, that's the kind of extreme circumstances I was talking about. Vulcanoes contribute very little, though. Eruptions don't last long and cover only a small area.

Fossil fuels are one by product of this interaction

A product, yes, but do fossil fuels interact themselves?

The only difference between Canada and where I live is which hockey team we cheer for.

So, you are among the lucky ones. I'm sure that won't influence your thoughts on these matters, though. That would be quite selfish and very un-Christian, after all.

elevated CO2 levels are stimulating rice growth and grain yield by factors of 30 to 40 percent

I notice you quote freely, but where is the link? You must understand that I'm more than a little sceptical about your sources (or rather about how you interpret them).

So what is bad for cassava, and tapioca seems to be better for fruits, vegetables, and rice.

More fruits and vegetables too? Is that your own conclusion from your claimed results for grains, or do you have references?

Anyway, the 750 million people who now rely on cassave do so mostly because its one of the few crops that will grow decently in the dry and hot areas where they live. You think they can switch to rice and fruits, just like that? That would be nice. Or do you expect them to move to Minnesota and Canada?

I was actually thinking of its apparent size in the night sky. It was much brighter and loomed much larger in the sky back during the Eocene.

I doubt that a decrease of 0.4% (1500 on 384000 km) in earth to moon distance would make any difference on the 'apparant' size of the moon. But if so, would the 'apparant' size of the moon have any effect on earth's climate? You're willing to believe that, but not that burning fossil fuels might be the cause?

[kandrathe]

Yes, there are such places. Temporary. Not long enough to complete the process.

Your source seems to be your life long research into paleo-geology?

C-S-Fe Geochemistry of Some Modern and Ancient Anoxic Marine Muds and Mudstones

<blockquote>Most sedimentary C, S and Fe occurs in marine muds and is originally present as an unstable mixture of dissolved sulphate, organic matter and detrital Fe minerals. During early diagenesis, key reactants are either destroyed (reduction of Fe(III) and SO4^2 to form pyrite), created (organically bound sulphur (OBS)) or preserved (Fe-bearing silicates). Pyrite formation is commonly limited not by sulphide availability but by the rate at which detrital Fe minerals react with sulphide. At low temperatures, detrital Fe(II) and Fe(III)-bearing clay minerals react very slowly with sulphide and are buried intact. The uptake of sulphur into organic matter is not, as commonly assumed, sulphide-limited. We believe that polysulphides react rapidly with organic matter and that the availability of reactive polysulphides may also influence the sulphur content of kerogen. Polysulphide formation is favoured at stable aerobic-anaerobic interfaces and sediments deposited under weakly oxygenated bottom waters are most likely to contain sulphur-rich kerogen. Deep burial (greater than 70 degrees C) C-S-Fe diagenesis is characterized by the loss and partial reduction of Fe(III) from smectitic and illitic clays and the conversion of limited amounts of OBS to lower molecular mass S compounds. Pyrite formation is volumetrically insignificant. More than 90% of OBS remains within organic-rich mudrocks during petroleum generation and expulsion, preserving a sulphur-enriched residual kerogen. The extent to which OBS is eventually converted to H2S, and at what level of thermal maturity, is unclear. If, as may be likely, much of the sulphur in residual kerogen is thiophenic, it will be stable to at least 200 degrees C.</blockquote>

Google "Anoxic marine zones" if you want to see areas where modern oil deposits are forming where carbon bearing detritus is being continually buried beneath eroded silts.

As for the rest of your post. Your claims are not facts, and I'm too busy to disprove every wild thing that you post.

Regarding the Earth-Moon system, space is limited to describe the tidal energy physics involved in the Moon drifting 1500 miles (2414 Km), or slowing the rotation of the Earth. The simple answer is yes, the Moon does contribute warming through this interaction, the Sun contributes warming, and possibly some other nearby stars contribute some energy to the Earth. The amount of CO2 would only be one factor in influencing the amount of energy that escapes.

Google "CO2 vegetable production" if you want to see how CO2 is already used in greenhouses to accelerate and maximize vegetable production. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are around 387 ppm for comparison.

Here's one; http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/circ556.html

"The introduction of supplementary carbon dioxide into the greenhouse has been found to significantly increase the yields of greenhouse tomatoes and other vegetables. Supplementary carbon dioxide is most effective on days when the greenhouse has been shut up for several days with no ventilation. Maximum results can be achieved by injecting 1000-1500 ppm CO2 into the greenhouse using propane burners or other CO2 generators."

I'm not down on cassava, but one needs to ask the smart questions. If I need to rely on a poisonous plant for sustenance maybe this is the wrong place to live, or maybe there are other crops I can use the survive. Should we live in the Sahara desert, or in a tidal basin, or next water where floods are prevalent? I question the logic of living here in the north, when the temperature is -15F today, and I question the logic of people living in Phoenix when there is not enough water, or people living in the Mississippi river basin.

[Zenda]

C-S-Fe Geochemistry of Some Modern and Ancient Anoxic Marine Muds and Mudstones

So, chemical reactions occur when Carbon, Sulphur and Iron come together. Is that going to take CO2 out of the atmosphere in sufficient quantities?

Google "Anoxic marine zones" if you want to see areas where modern oil deposits are forming where carbon bearing detritus is being continually buried beneath eroded silts.

First result:

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/con...bstract/4/5/297

"The production of methane in anoxic environments can lead to significant accumulations of this gas in appropriate marine sediments. However, the uniformly low methane concentrations in marine, anoxic, sulfate-reducing sea water and sediments represents a balance between production by methanogenic bacteria and consumption by sulfate-reducing bacteria. The primary sink for anaerobically generated methane in marine sediments is sulfate reduction, not aerobic oxidation."

Second result:

http://www.answers.com/topic/anoxic-zone

"In the open ocean, the only large regions which approach anoxic conditions are between 165 and 3300 ft (50 and 1000 m) deep in the equatorial Pacific and between 330 and 3300 ft (100 and 1000 m) in the northern Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean... in pore waters of slowly accumulating deep-sea sediments, oxygen may never become totally depleted."

Third result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

Nowhere any mention of anoxic zones on ocean floors. It usually happens in polluted coastal and stagnant surface waters.

As expected, because this is how it works: The Conveyor Belt

the Moon does contribute warming through this interaction

You mean it made earth warmer when it was closer? So we're having global cooling now because the moon is further away?

Here's one; http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/circ556.html

Tomatoes? We can't live on tomatoes. Where is the link for the 30 to 40% increase for rice and other grains?

This one? It mentions 30 to 40%, and claims that will hold for all plants (written by a mechanical engineer, so he should know). Or this one, from the NCPA? They claim improvements of up to 219% for conditions with water shortage. They also claim a 10 to 55% improvement for corn, which is very strange because corn is a socalled C4 crop (C4 plants don't benefit from more CO2 in the air).

I think you better look here:

Climate change and agriculture

"In 2005, the Royal Society in London concluded that the purported benefits of CO2 fertilization are likely to be far lower than previously estimated when factors such as increasing ground-level ozone are taken into account."

"Cooked rice grain from plants grown in high-CO2 environments would be firmer than that from today's plants. However, concentrations of iron and zinc, which are important for human nutrition, would be lower. Moreover, the protein content of the grain decreases under combined increases of temperature and CO2"

"Studies have shown that higher CO2 levels lead to reduced plant uptake of nitrogen (and a smaller number showing the same for trace elements such as zinc) resulting in crops with lower nutritional value"

Carbon Dioxide's Role in Plant Growth

"C4 plants already use CO2 efficiently. An increase in the concentration does not help them much."

"Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal. Still higher concentrations can be expected to yield still better results. Note, however, that the effects vary even among different types of C3 plants. Some are better able to take advantage of higher CO2 concentrations than others, and a few actually suffer if CO2 concentrations are raised."

High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

"Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil."

This one sums it up pretty neatly: Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

If I need to rely on a poisonous plant for sustenance maybe this is the wrong place to live, or maybe there are other crops I can use the survive.

Well, 10% of all plants, and 60% of all crop plants contain cyanide. Normally, high levels of protein help to neutralise it, but the study I referenced showed that higher CO2 levels can increase cyanide concentrations, and lower protein content at the same time. Cassave just happens to exhibit this behaviour more strongly. That's a real pity, btw, because it was one of the more promising crops to help us out in a warmer future.

[kandrathe]

Tomatoes? We can't live on tomatoes.

That about sums up your ability to discuss this rationally.

Of course the moon contributes to the energy of the Earth. When it was closer, it contributed more. Did it cause global warming? Some, and depending on what the Sun, and the Earth's atmosphere were doing, it may have been a factor in some temperature maximums. In these complex global systems, you cannot isolate one part. All the parts work together, otherwise you end up like the blind men and the elephant.

Yes, Zenda, chemical reactions involving carbon tend to remove it from the atmosphere and fix it into hydrocarbon compounds. Yes, methane is produced from methanogenic bacteria, which is another way in which carbon is fixed as long as it remains as submerged hydrates. It does not invalidate the link I posted earlier which describes how precursors to kerogens are formed in modern sediments.

As for your links on CO2 in plants, I think the most salient statement from the articles was "Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible." I don't think that food supply is our biggest worry. I'm more concerned about understanding the cycle of CO2+H2O --> H2CO3 --> H+ & HCO3- --> H+ & CO3 both in localized and global limits. Generally, the way these systems work is that as one particular chemical becomes abundant it results in favoring a different type of organism who thrives. But, there are times when mass extinction is the only possible result. So, as a life long "green" advocate, I'm concerned we are past the point of corrective balance. The problem is that environmental cycles are very long, and the consequences for 200 years of CO2 emissions maybe a forgone conclusion, and there is no possible way for us to now stop the chain of events already in motion.

Yet, we have the Kyoto and Copenhagen type political forums where the "developing nations" like China get to hold the US hostage for green-mail to bribe these nations into stopping their clear cutting of rain forests and burning fossil fuels. If they are smart they'll grab the loot and use it to build their industries anyway, while Europe and the North America go bankrupt. This is why Copenhagen failed. No one wants to have real verifiable compliance. They just want their share of the 100 billion dollars, that we would end up borrowing from China anyway. No one is willing to just do the right thing.

[Jester]

So, as a life long "green" advocate, I'm concerned we are past the point of corrective balance.

(...)

No one is willing to just do the right thing.

Can you not see the commonsense argument that the nations that have polluted "past the point of corrective balance" are the ones who should be the first to "do the right thing"? Or how justifiably cynical the third world is when they refuse, on the basis that it might endanger the lifestyle which caused the problem in the first place? A lifestyle that the third world does not enjoy, and has never enjoyed?

Sure, they're self interested. But they're being asked to both suffer the consequences of pollution and pay the price of prevention by far richer nations, who are dragging their feet and complaining about their own lack of prudence and foresight.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I see this problem as; The plane is crashing because we are heavy, and maybe in order to save it, everyone needs to help out. But, everyone is arguing about who's luggage gets tossed out first. The lighter weight people feel its only fair that the heavier people toss out their bags first. The coach people want to be sure that the value of the contents of their luggage will be replaced by the airline, or even the first class passengers. Meanwhile, beyond the argument nothing happens and we crash anyway. This is Kyoto, Copenhagen, and the UN in general.

[eppie]

I see this problem as; The plane is crashing because we are heavy, and maybe in order to save it, everyone needs to help out. But, everyone is arguing about who's luggage gets tossed out first. The lighter weight people feel its only fair that the heavier people toss out their bags first. The coach people want to be sure that the value of the contents of their luggage will be replaced by the airline, or even the first class passengers. Meanwhile, beyond the argument nothing happens and we crash anyway. This is Kyoto, Copenhagen, and the UN in general.

You should have gone to Copenhagen, I am sure the would reach an agreement after hearing your brilliant comparison and FINALLY realizing how dumb they were acting.

[Zenda]

As for your links on CO2 in plants, I think the most salient statement from the articles was "Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible."

Good. I didn't want you to rely on crop improvements that might never come.

chemical reactions involving carbon tend to remove it from the atmosphere and fix it into hydrocarbon compounds.

Creating hydrocarbons is not that easy. For starters, it needs oxygen-free environments, remember, which generally do not come into contact with the atmosphere.

methane is produced from methanogenic bacteria, which is another way in which carbon is fixed as long as it remains as submerged hydrates

These bacteria are the cause of methane output by wetlands, yes. Apparantly they haven't learned yet to pack their waste in those neat hydrate structures.

I'm more concerned about understanding the cycle of CO2+H2O --> H2CO3 --> H+ & HCO3- --> H+ & CO3 both in localized and global limits.

Are you concerned about the CO2/H2CO3 equilibrium? It only takes a few seconds for carbonic acid to turn back into CO2, you know. Nothing to worry about. The notation will be clearer if you replace the single arrows by an equal sign. The human body uses this equilibrium to buffer changes in blood acidity, btw. If too much acid is formed, it will be absorbed by the creation of CO2 and H2O. If things get too 'caustic', the opposite will happen.

So, as a life long "green" advocate, I'm concerned we are past the point of corrective balance.

Ah, you're not in denial? You've just given up and want to save me and others from wasting effort?

I see this problem as; The plane is crashing because we are heavy, and maybe in order to save it, everyone needs to help out. But, everyone is arguing about who's luggage gets tossed out first. The lighter weight people feel its only fair that the heavier people toss out their bags first. The coach people want to be sure that the value of the contents of their luggage will be replaced by the airline, or even the first class passengers. Meanwhile, beyond the argument nothing happens and we crash anyway. This is Kyoto, Copenhagen, and the UN in general.

Interesting analogy, but I would make a small change. The lighter weight people don't have any luggage at all, so in order to save the expensive properties of other passengers, they are asked to jump. Then, when they refuse, they will be accused of endangering everyone, and propably thrown out. Ofcourse, since they are light weight and have no luggage, it won't help much and the plane will continue to crash.

It might be better to dump only the fattest passenger, along with his or her belongings.