On Jul 27, 9:55*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

People that do not understand the details, generally do not understand
the problem.
Understanding the problem is important.

But the particular details raised by lumping together all sources and sinks
of CO2, in this case, lead to a mistaken understanding of the problem.
That's not unusual.

--
Ed Huntress

Lumping all the sources and sinks of CO2 may lead you to a mistaken
understanding of the problem.

However it does not cause Don or I to have a mistaken understanding of
the problem. In fact it does exactly the opposite. For example I
have not seen you address the fact the food production involves the
use of a great deal of energy that is obtained from fossil fuels. So
the cycle you describe as atmosphere CO2 converted to food by plants
and then the food converted back to CO2 is way too simplistic and
leads to a mistaken understanding of the problem.

Dan