"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*