wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Don is not playing stupid.

Yes he is. And he does it nicely. g

He is just pointing out that a molecule of
CO2 does not know if it was released in a cycle of a few years or
hundreds of years.

No, he's not. Because he's enough of an engineer to know that's irrelevant
to the issue.

So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere.

Yes, it matters a great deal if the CO2 is just recycled from the planet's
current load of atmospheric carbon, or if it's suddenly released from carbon
stored and sequestered millions of years. As you emit CO2 from fossil
sources, you increase the base load of atmospheric carbon, raising it to
some value that existed millions of years ago.

It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background.

Then let's see you put it to use here.

The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point?

--
Ed Huntress