4 ms·
While this is technically true, it's important to recognize the difference in timescales. By burning fossil fuels, we're moving carbon from the lithosphere to
by jofer 11y ago
While this is technically true, it's important to recognize the difference in timescales.
By burning fossil fuels, we're moving carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere and hydrosphere. The biosphere can rapidly take in a finite amount of CO2, but it's not a very large amount.
The main way (on geologic timescales) that it's taken back out of the atmosphere/hydrosphere and put into the lithosphere is by carbonate deposition (i.e. limestones). On human timescales, that may as well be forever.
- autokad 11y agocreatures are made of carbon, lots of it. they absorb it, die, fall the the bottom of the ocean. it happens quite fast, and the more carbon the more they have to absorb the faster it happens. if we were in such dire straits environmentally, Obama - being a liberal, and having access to all the numbers and advisors, would have made that priority #1. What was his priority #1? forcing people to purchase health care. but wait, was it priority #2? not even, immigration among other things seemed more important.
- jofer 11y agoYes, the biosphere can rapidly remove carbon. However, the total amount it can remove and store on geologic timescales is very small. The total amount of biomass on the planet is not that large compared to what we're talking about. Furthermore, most organic matter decomposes and releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. On geologic timescales, the biosphere is not a major player in the carbon cycle. I don't understand how politcs factors into this. This is basic science.
- johnchristopher 11y agoHe's calling the higher authority argument (Obama) by using the fact Obama didn't act on this so he's right. That's funny because he dismisses that same authority figure in the next sentence.