<Cycling CO2 through the biosphere takes a very long time--therein lies the rub that I have yet to see you acknowledge.>
C2, I know it takes quite a while to end up back on the bottom of the ocean and even longer to get to sedimentary reservoirs from whence it came, but that doesn't matter.
Getting it back into the atmosphere is good enough. Filling the atmosphere will be very difficult because like a leaky bucket, the more we fill it, the faster it runs out, until, if the the hole is big enough, equilibrium will be reached [given a particular rate of inflow].
Similarly with the atmosphere, the more we fill it with CO2, the faster plants will soak it up, oceans will dissolve it and an equilibrium will be reached. Given that it has take a century to fill the atmosphere with maybe another 10% of CO2 thanks to our efforts, we'll be struggling to get the CO2 content up so that 20% of the CO2 is due to our efforts.
If we doubled the CO2 level, that would be something to boast about. I don't think we can do it, though we should try.
C2, it's not a questionable belief that CO2 increases will cause greater plant life. I used to sell gas to a glasshouse operator who burned it to heat his glasshouse and increase the CO2 levels to feed the plants and increase growth rates. They don't spend that much money just for fun.
We are living in an experiment nature is running, involving vast and long lasting ice ages. We will NOT like another ice age. So we need to hold them at bay. The best way to do that is to keep the place warm so snow cover can't extend, reflecting heat and causing runaway cooling. Nature is a mindless, indifferent beast, running a potentially fatal experiment. We have brains and a vested interest in survival in comfort. We had better accept we are in an experiment whether we like it or not and figure out how to get a good outcome from the experiment. Umpty million dead and frozen people isn't a good outcome [in my book anyway].
Mqurice
Mq |
