Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

You seem to really have convinced yourself that they have any. Evidence that is.
They have really none.

Kind's of an 'Emperor Clothes' thing, mate.

     What are you arguing - just write in Google: Keeling curve, and click on Images ... and you will see what you will see.

     The MSDS is for you, to start understanding where you are going, and BTW the CO2 at concentration of 40% is the best pesticide ... killing any moths like you and FBM for example.

You said herbicide. Moths aren't plants.

A chart of past increases that doesn't show a 30% increase every year in no way supports your claim that there will be a 30% increase to infinity.

     In smaller concentrations CO2 acts as herbicide on fungi (reference Monsanto), in higher concentrations (above 10%) it may be used, and is currently used, as a pesticide - what in particular is your problem?
     The point is that you don't have the function of approximation of the CO2 increase, you have no idea of how an exponent Ax = 1.3* A(x-1) going to infinity works (which is obvious that is going to infinity, for it is a recursive function without an end condition), you didn't answer when the bottle will be filled up in half on the previous example ... but reached to the philosophy thesis on the distinction between herbicides & pesticides, which is absolutely marginal to the issue of uncontrolled pumping of CO2 into the air and the inability to process it back into something else that is safer and that will mitigate the problems in the near future. You have neither an idea of how to stop the increase of the CO2 into the air, nor what will we do when the **** hits the fan.
     As you have no idea about the CO2 itself ... you started dealing with the herbicides & the pesticides. The continuous increase of the concentration of the CO2 into the air is not safe to our body metabolism and to the environment - no matter whether it is viewed as a herbicide or as a pesticide.

Pesticides are not herbicides although we haven't established whether you are a vegetable or not.

I know exactly how it works. You don't seem to understand that CO2 can NOT increase exponentially in closed system. Carbon makes up less than .1% if the earth's crust and core. Oxygen makes up 46% of the crust and core. If all of those 2 elements became gases in the form of CO2 and O2, CO2 would be less than 1% of the atmosphere. But O2 doesn't even make up 25% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. The simple fact is that CO2 can not increase exponentially to even 50% of the atmosphere. It will quickly lose it's ability to increase exponentially (which it doesn't seem to have to begin with) based on the oceans and Henry's law.

     Who are those 'we' ... and do you have the time of the bottle or you will continue talking on idle mode.
     The biosphere of the Earth is not closed system, and the CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere continuously and the only option to deal with the problems that it is going to cause is to stop producing it at such industrial quantities.
     All the 'scientists' that claim that the production of oil from tar-sands makes economic sense and is eco-production should be pronounced as vegetables, if we use your vocabulary.

Stop and reread that statement you made Herald. Really read it.

Then you can ask yourself why you think the atmosphere is a biosphere because I have no idea why you make such idiotic statements.

By the way, the biosphere on earth is a closed system. It can't expand beyond the available energy and chemical compounds available to it and both energy and chemicals pretty much have a finite limit on earth.

     Where did you see that claim: that 'the atmosphere is a biosphere'? You are the one actually claiming that, for you claim that the biosphere and the atmosphere are closed systems, and the CO2 circulates only in the atmosphere.
     The biosphere is open system because most of the its energy (for the photosynthesis of the plants for example) comes from the Sun (which is neither part of the biosphere, nor of the atmosphere); the biosphere is open system because species become continuously extinct irretrivably - you will hardly soon revive to live the mammoth, for example. Since 1900 about 400 species of Vertebrata have left the system. It acquires energy from the outer space, and sends continuously its members with a one-way ticket to the 'afterlife' - where do you see closed system here.
     The atmosphere is also not a closed system. It also receives its energy (for the water cycle for example) from outside (Sun, Volcanos, gas and heat-exchange with the biosphere, etc.). The CO2 of the atmosphere is recycled through the land forest, through the ocean plankton, and through some chemical reactions (rock formation; increasing of the acidity of the ocean, etc.). The biosphere is not part of the atmosphere, so the atmosphere is not a closed system. Obviously you have totally messy representation and understanding of the world.
     Forget for a moment about the black box modelling of closed/open system, and take a look at the Keeling curve. Just place a ruler on the diagram to see whether it is exponent or not, and to where it is going. This is empirical data and you cannot deny them. No matter what your special theory of the closed systems may be, the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing along an exponent ... which is going to infinity. It is logical - you have no idea of how to stop the increase, and there is nothing on the event horizon that will stop it ... unless we do something on the issue to return most of the carbon back to the earth where it has been, before the fossil fuel apologists started exploiting it with their fresh ideas of burning carbon to infinity and wasting energy resources of any kind.

So, you are arguing that the biosphere can expand beyond the available resources? And the atmosphere can do the same thing?

The Keeling curve is NOT proof that CO2 increases is exponential to infinity and it refutes your claim that it is growing at 30%.

Fossil fuels are finite.

      ... or shrink, as the biosphere is actually doing at present. Shrinking of the biosphere reduces its capacity to process CO2, and by adding to that the retard farmers that are continuously burning stubbles and forests the picture becomes complete and absolute.
     What I claim is that the annual man-made CO2 emissions are exceeding significantly the capacity of the biosphere to process back that CO2 - which is accumulated in the air with the years and changes the parameters of the climate.
     We have no choice - we shall either put an 'end condition' on the CO2 exponent ... or look for ourselves for another planet. The more time is wasted the harder the problem becomes.

If he thinks the idea that aliens are teleporting the designs for the earth (?) from billions of years ago is "plausible," then I'm not in the least surprised by the relatively mild claim that the biosphere can expand beyond the available resources. I don't think he actually understands the words he types.

Herald says:


This is true. It's what the science says. However your claim that it is increasing exponentially is completely bogus. It's essentially a compound-interest argumen in a simple-interest reality. It would only be true if the CO2 at any given time acted to increase future CO2, like money-plus-interest acts to increase succeeding money-plus-interest. However the CO2 in the atmospere has no effect on future CO2 emissions. The "exponent" is essentially 1, not greater. Since future emissions in no way depend on what's already in the atmosphere, nor are they increased by it. Emissions depend on the fossil fuel produced and consumed, and that is NOT increasing exponentially. Next year's fossil fuel production will NOT increase 15% and a further 15% compounded the year afrter that, and a further 15% compounded the year after that, as you hypothesize. It's nuch closer to a linear increase,
(or contraction depending on the world economy), it's much slower, and it is NOT exponential. It's not even linear, but it's far closer to linear than your hypothesized exponent.

Incidentally, if the contents of the bottle double every minute, and it's full after an hour, it'll be half full at 59 minutes. That's a form of comound interest, and it;s entirely irrelevant to the concentration of CO2, which doesn't work that way. Trick questions rarely represent reality, and yours doesn't in any way.

Wow. You don't seem to have much of a grasp. The biosphere is made up of flora and fauna. Whether the biosphere expands or contracts doesn't tell you much about it's ability to reduce CO2 without knowing which of those 2 segments is driving the expansion/contractions.

But further you completely ignore that CO2 level is not controlled by just the biosphere. The oceans have the largest intake of CO2.

     Really, what about the facts. Why don't you open that link for example:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg
     Put a ruler on the tangent of the curve from 1960-1970 and see where the rest of the curve is going. It is obvious that the function of approximation is exponent and it is obvious that it does not have enx condition ... and is going to infinity. If you cannot understand the diagram, ask somebody who is competent on math formal models to make an interpretation of that to you.

The irony is too much. Stop it. The humor you provide is exponential when it isn't stochastic.

To infinity.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!!!
--Buzz Lightyear