"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously
thought," said
one of the study's authors, Corinne Le Quere, in the BAS statement.

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote
Plants needs ALL (not only CO2) elements necessary to growth.

CO2 isn't an element.



"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote
The SO2 and fly ash are also necessary.

Ya, fly ash was in great abundance before the arrival of man.

Stupid.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" wrote
...

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously
thought," said
one of the study's authors, Corinne Le Quere, in the BAS statement.

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote
Plants needs ALL (not only CO2) elements necessary to growth.

CO2 isn't an element.

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote
The SO2 and fly ash are also necessary.

Ya, fly ash was in great abundance before the arrival of man.

Stupid.

You can easily calculate "The decline in global sink" if you assume that CO2
without the natural constituents of smoke is useless for plants. It is known
that the lack of one element restrain growth of plants. So you can calculate
the ratio between C and S in the natural smoke and next calculate the
quantity of useless CO2 (if you know the total quantity of S removed from
smoke).

Neglecting that the fly ash are an important fertiliser is not wise.
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" wrote
...
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously
thought," said
one of the study's authors, Corinne Le Quere, in the BAS statement.

"Szczepan Bia?k" wrote
Plants needs ALL (not only CO2) elements necessary to growth.

CO2 isn't an element.

"Szczepan Bia?k" wrote
The SO2 and fly ash are also necessary.

Ya, fly ash was in great abundance before the arrival of man.

Stupid.

You can easily calculate "The decline in global sink" if you assume that CO2
without the natural constituents of smoke is useless for plants. It is known
that the lack of one element restrain growth of plants. So you can calculate
the ratio between C and S in the natural smoke and next calculate the
quantity of useless CO2 (if you know the total quantity of S removed from
smoke).

Why would you call CO2 useless, it provides the carbon
for combining with hydrogen from water to build the hydrocarbons
it needs to grow.

And most of the oxygen is the only thing that is useless
to plant life.

"Whata Fool" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bia3ek" wrote:

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" wrote
.. .
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilization of
atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously
thought," said
one of the study's authors, Corinne Le Quere, in the BAS statement.

"Szczepan Bia?k" wrote
Plants needs ALL (not only CO2) elements necessary to growth.

CO2 isn't an element.

"Szczepan Bia?k" wrote
The SO2 and fly ash are also necessary.

Ya, fly ash was in great abundance before the arrival of man.

Stupid.

You can easily calculate "The decline in global sink" if you assume that
CO2
without the natural constituents of smoke is useless for plants. It is
known
that. So you can calculate
the ratio between C and S in the natural smoke and next calculate the
quantity of useless CO2 (if you know the total quantity of S removed from
smoke).

Why would you call CO2 useless, it provides the carbon
for combining with hydrogen from water to build the hydrocarbons
it needs to grow.

If you burn plants in the natural manner when the ALL CO2 will be used by
plants. But if you remove the SO2 and the fly ash from the smoke when only
some percent of CO2 will be used by plants (because "the lack of one element
restrain growth of plants"). It is the only sensible explanation of the "The
decline in global sink" SO2 and fly ash are nutrient for plants.
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:

If you burn plants in the natural manner when the ALL CO2 will be used by
plants. But if you remove the SO2 and the fly ash from the smoke when only
some percent of CO2 will be used by plants (because "the lack of one element
restrain growth of plants"). It is the only sensible explanation of the "The
decline in global sink" SO2 and fly ash are nutrient for plants.
S*

I don't think plants are involved in the decline in global sink,
it is mostly the ocean that is getting more concentrated CO2 and
resists absorbtion of more.
And deforestation is another loss of sink, there are less
plants in those areas. But with increased CO2, all plants
should grow faster or bigger or something better.

I am not sure sulphur is needed for plants, but it may
affect solar absorption in the atmosphere and may affect the
precipitation of clouds into rain.

Most plant burning is done in the bellies of animals,
which may do a very good job of using all nutrients present.

On 24 Oct, 11:15, Whata Fool wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:

If you burn plants in the natural manner when the ALL CO2 will be used by
plants. But if you remove the SO2 and the fly ash from the smoke when only
some percent of CO2 will be used by plants (because "the lack of one element
restrain growth of plants"). It is the only sensible explanation of the "The
decline in global sink" SO2 and fly ash are nutrient for plants.
S*

I don't think plants are involved in the decline in global sink,
it is mostly the ocean that is getting more concentrated CO2 and
resists absorbtion of more.
And deforestation is another loss of sink, there are less
plants in those areas. But with increased CO2, all plants
should grow faster or bigger or something better.

I am not sure sulphur is needed for plants, but it may
affect solar absorption in the atmosphere and may affect the
precipitation of clouds into rain.

Most plant burning is done in the bellies of animals,
which may do a very good job of using all nutrients present.

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food
production

NewScientist.com news service
16 May 2007
David Chandler (extracts)

"Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will
be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of
fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But the levelling-
off effect means that plants will not simply soak up ever more CO2.
Furthermore, studies of past climate suggest that as the planet warms,
the land and oceans will start emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse
gases than they absorb.
Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air
pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many
regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the
beneficial effects of higher CO2. "
"Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in
biodiversity. Species that thrive on higher CO2 will drive others to
extinction. In the long run, this might limit the resiliency of some
ecosystems.
In addition, fertilisation is just one of carbon dioxide's effects.
Increased CO2 causes acidification of water, especially in the oceans.
Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2
concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled
organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large
and complex marine ecosystem "
see:-
http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11655

Tree studies using Free Air CO2 Enrichment indicate that most of the
carbon uptake is in short-term pools like leaf growth and fine root
systems, but not sustained in woody growth.
There may be better potential for carbon enrichment of uncultivated
grassland soils, but not if they experience prolonged droughts!


"Although carbon dioxide fertilization of forests might slow the rate
of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a 23 percent increase in
productivity is insufficient to stabilize the concentration in the
atmosphere," he said. "The increase in productivity demonstrated in
these experiments will most likely be tempered by the stresses of
climate warming, ozone pollution or insufficient nitrogen supply. In
addition, some of the increased organic matter entering the forest is
not sequestered in wood but is rapidly returned to the atmosphere.
Understanding the controls on carbon processing by ecosystems remains
a priority research challenge."

Rich Norby, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tennessee
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_relea...=mr20051207-00

see also:-
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/facilities/O...ce-article.pdf
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/facilities/O...E/results.html
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News...ews051220.html

"Whata Fool"

Most plant burning is done in the bellies of animals,
which may do a very good job of using all nutrients present.

The best job do open fires because the nutrients are transfered for long
distances. Also birds.
S*

Understanding the controls on carbon processing by ecosystems remains
a priority research challenge."

The carbon processing is known sufficiently. The sulphur and the fly ash
need serious research.
S*

wrote:

On 24 Oct, 11:15, Whata Fool wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
If you burn plants in the natural manner when the ALL CO2 will be used by
plants. But if you remove the SO2 and the fly ash from the smoke when only
some percent of CO2 will be used by plants (because "the lack of one element
restrain growth of plants"). It is the only sensible explanation of the "The
decline in global sink" SO2 and fly ash are nutrient for plants.
S*

I don't think plants are involved in the decline in global sink,
it is mostly the ocean that is getting more concentrated CO2 and
resists absorbtion of more.
And deforestation is another loss of sink, there are less
plants in those areas. But with increased CO2, all plants
should grow faster or bigger or something better.

I am not sure sulphur is needed for plants, but it may
affect solar absorption in the atmosphere and may affect the
precipitation of clouds into rain.

Most plant burning is done in the bellies of animals,
which may do a very good job of using all nutrients present.

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food
production

NewScientist.com news service
16 May 2007
David Chandler (extracts)

"Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will
be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of
fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But the levelling-
off effect means that plants will not simply soak up ever more CO2.

Where did I mention plants taking up more CO2, I only said
more CO2 means plants can grow faster or more lush.

And since the warming effects of Greenhouse Gases is
approaching the leveling off of warming, the problems mentioned
may not happen.
Man cannot live in cold climates without burning fossil
fuel to keep warm.

"Whata Fool"

I am not sure sulphur is needed for plants, but it may
affect solar absorption in the atmosphere and may affect the
precipitation of clouds into rain.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/Nr...cycle_5i9.html

http://www.lenntech.com/sulphur-cycle.htm

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y0906T/y0906t08.htm
S*