Posted on 01/19/2008 7:43:43 PM PST by CedarDave
That's not great logic, because the carbon in plant biomass was recently removed from the atmosphere (you could stretch this back a few hundred years for the longest lived plants), while fossil fuels go back millions of years, and that carbon was effectively removed from the Earth system until human activities "reactivated" it.
Only to a point; the CO2 fertilization effect apparently is self-limiting, and we've got plenty of oxygen.
So, what is the problem with higher C02 levels? It can’t trap heat, because it is colorless and odorless.
It absorbs in the IR; it's not "colorless" in the infrared range.
ping
Does that, then mean that current schemes to sequester it on site is just creating an even bigger problem down the road?
At what level is more CO2 less effective or diminishes to a no net-return point, do you know?
That depends on how long the duration of effective sequestration is.
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
"Studies of past climate changes suggest the land and oceans start releasing more CO2 than they absorb as the planet warms. The latest IPCC report concludes that the terrestrial biosphere will become a source rather than a sink of carbon before the end of the century."
and this:
Higher Carbon Dioxide Lack Of Nitrogen Limit Plant Growth
The main self-limiting factor is nutrients; if the CO2 fertilization effect enhances plant growth, then the augmented growth requires more nutrients, which become depleted from the soils faster, and then the growth slows down.
Guess that’s why the securities (stocks) of fertilizer producers have been on a tear. (TNH, MOS, & etc.)
Maybe the reason CO2 levels are up is because they are taking nitrogen from the air and putting it in fertilizer and liquid nitrogen storage.
I just can’t believe that 380ppm of CO2 in the air causes global warming. This is .000038% of the total. I believe that other more absorbent substances would be much more of a trapping mechanism for heat. Like dust, water vapor, particulates from smoke, and the like.
(Picture me smiling bemusedly.) Maybe you can't believe that. Well... try to visualize how tenuous the atmosphere is in the stratosphere. Visualize how few molecules of ozone are contained in a given volume of the stratosphere. Realize that the Sun is irradiating every square centimeter of the atmosphere (on the lighted side, of course) with the full spectrum of solar radiation, including UV. Realize how much UV those widely dispersed ozone molecules absorb.
Still believe that only a little bit of CO2 can't absorb significant amounts of IR radiation?
Dust aerosols and other aerosols (soot) actually block incoming radiation, acting as a cooling factor, but soot may actually directly absorb incoming IR from the Sun, which is a warming factor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and also absorbs in the IR.
I saw the info review on my TIVO and laugh as I pulled up a program I saved and ran through the commercials.
Glad I could make you smile.
Just so you know, I purposely said that 380 ppm = .000038%
knowing that it is actually .0038% to see if you would catch my (error).
I guess you either missed it or were too nice to tell me I was wrong. :>)
Check that- 380ppm = .038%
Scientist are concerned with their legacy.
What needs to be created is a database of government funding and outrageous studies/claims. Unlike the ice age scam of the 1970’s, this time there will be the list of shame. Ideally you’d be able to sort for the most absurd, you know, like 120k to study the effects of climate change on the hedge hogs.
That way, we won’t have an ice age threat again in another 40 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.