There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

Yes, there are such places. Temporary. Not long enough to complete the process.

Your source seems to be your life long research into paleo-geology?

C-S-Fe Geochemistry of Some Modern and Ancient Anoxic Marine Muds and Mudstones

<blockquote>Most sedimentary C, S and Fe occurs in marine muds and is originally present as an unstable mixture of dissolved sulphate, organic matter and detrital Fe minerals. During early diagenesis, key reactants are either destroyed (reduction of Fe(III) and SO4^2 to form pyrite), created (organically bound sulphur (OBS)) or preserved (Fe-bearing silicates). Pyrite formation is commonly limited not by sulphide availability but by the rate at which detrital Fe minerals react with sulphide. At low temperatures, detrital Fe(II) and Fe(III)-bearing clay minerals react very slowly with sulphide and are buried intact. The uptake of sulphur into organic matter is not, as commonly assumed, sulphide-limited. We believe that polysulphides react rapidly with organic matter and that the availability of reactive polysulphides may also influence the sulphur content of kerogen. Polysulphide formation is favoured at stable aerobic-anaerobic interfaces and sediments deposited under weakly oxygenated bottom waters are most likely to contain sulphur-rich kerogen. Deep burial (greater than 70 degrees C) C-S-Fe diagenesis is characterized by the loss and partial reduction of Fe(III) from smectitic and illitic clays and the conversion of limited amounts of OBS to lower molecular mass S compounds. Pyrite formation is volumetrically insignificant. More than 90% of OBS remains within organic-rich mudrocks during petroleum generation and expulsion, preserving a sulphur-enriched residual kerogen. The extent to which OBS is eventually converted to H2S, and at what level of thermal maturity, is unclear. If, as may be likely, much of the sulphur in residual kerogen is thiophenic, it will be stable to at least 200 degrees C.</blockquote>

Google "Anoxic marine zones" if you want to see areas where modern oil deposits are forming where carbon bearing detritus is being continually buried beneath eroded silts.

As for the rest of your post. Your claims are not facts, and I'm too busy to disprove every wild thing that you post.

Regarding the Earth-Moon system, space is limited to describe the tidal energy physics involved in the Moon drifting 1500 miles (2414 Km), or slowing the rotation of the Earth. The simple answer is yes, the Moon does contribute warming through this interaction, the Sun contributes warming, and possibly some other nearby stars contribute some energy to the Earth. The amount of CO2 would only be one factor in influencing the amount of energy that escapes.

Google "CO2 vegetable production" if you want to see how CO2 is already used in greenhouses to accelerate and maximize vegetable production. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are around 387 ppm for comparison.

Here's one; http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/circ556.html

"The introduction of supplementary carbon dioxide into the greenhouse has been found to significantly increase the yields of greenhouse tomatoes and other vegetables. Supplementary carbon dioxide is most effective on days when the greenhouse has been shut up for several days with no ventilation. Maximum results can be achieved by injecting 1000-1500 ppm CO2 into the greenhouse using propane burners or other CO2 generators."

I'm not down on cassava, but one needs to ask the smart questions. If I need to rely on a poisonous plant for sustenance maybe this is the wrong place to live, or maybe there are other crops I can use the survive. Should we live in the Sahara desert, or in a tidal basin, or next water where floods are prevalent? I question the logic of living here in the north, when the temperature is -15F today, and I question the logic of people living in Phoenix when there is not enough water, or people living in the Mississippi river basin.