"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article
,
" wrote:

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. 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. So it makes no difference in how the CO2 was
released into the atmosphere. It is faulty logic. I too have an
engineering background. The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

Dan


I *think* what Ed and others are saying is that the sequestered CO2 has
been sequestered for a very long time, but is being released now at a
far faster rate than it would be by natural processes, which then raises
the proportion of it in the atmosphere more than it ordinarily would if
left alone. It's the *rate* of release that's important, not the overall
amount.

Hell, that is what he *did* say!

Thank you, John. If any is genuinely surprised to recognize this phenomenon,
I have to wonder what they think the whole issue is about.

--
Ed Huntress