New, improved Was: Data Entry 1267

The jury is still out on the full cause and effect loop on increased CO2. Diminishing rain forests may well have a great effect; but non-tropical rainforests (Think Alaska) have a huge response to CO2 uptake when CO2 levels go up; so the net effect is still discussed in journals.

We have a pretty good handle on how much carbon we burn, down to a few percentage points in difference. We have a similarly good handle on the mbutt of the athmosphere and it's composition; down to a millionths.

If all the carbon we burn had ended in the athmosphere the level would rise twice as fast as it actually does. The oceans take up 20% of what we emit; and there is emerging consensus this buffer is around 25-30% full. (It is a buffer, because it is not going anywhere. The oceans have a mbutt around 275 times that of the athmosphere)

The remaining 30% is absorbed by plants. Tests show that 270 ppm CO2 is a floor, plants stop absorbing CO2 effectively around there; and that is a good explanation for why CO2 was at 280-290 ppm for most of our recent geological history.

They have a large response in biombutt generation when CO2 levels go up; up to 800 ppm CO2 where it levels off. We then approach tne 1-percent level where plants and mammals will start to have metabolic problems. Miami is already at 700 ppm at its worst, and Mexico City beyond that.

-- mrr