More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[gnarlylove]

Look SSDD, I wasn't even talking about climate change was I? Fuck no. I didn't even fucking mention the word but you somehow inserted your magic and presto we have "I need to prove the link between CO2 rising and climate change." I am not getting into these claims because to deal with people like you we have to stick to very basic, very rudimentary discussion. You are prone to mistakes and are still flinging the concept of falsifiability everywhere without knowing what it is. We've got a few ways to falsify this theory so stop being dishonest.

So back to my point: CO2 has risen right alongside industry. You can deny the numbers of 280 to 400ppm (which it looks like you are and aren't whenever its convenient) but I'd like to get your answer to stick. So if you agree with this widely known data of 280-400 since 1750 tell me what explains this increased CO2? Oceans? Hardly.

Its humans, buddy. There is no factual way around it. So if you can admit this undeniable fact we can move into deeper topics and connecting climate change to CO2. For now, we are merely assessing your ability to read widely known data and draw basic inductions.

 

[HimlerAspartame]

Ignorance is strength.

 

[flacaltenn]

I agreed with you that if the Oceans were responsible for all the CO2 that would easily falsify the AGW theory that claims human activity is the main source of CO2. We both know the Oceans are insufficient to cause such a stark increase in CO2 ppm.

This is one way to falsify AGW theory.

Another is to show humans do not produce CO2 in our activities. That would indeed falsify our link in higher rates of CO2 but we both know this would be a bold faced lie. That's two ways to falsify AGW theory. That means it's not falsifiable? Maybe your upset with the explanatory scope AGW offers. Your upset that it can cause more rain (in some parts) and less rain (in other parts) at the same time. That AGW theory is used to explain any event, just like evolution is used to explain our nascence. Is this what your trying to say? It's different from falsifiability. The two are easily confused for youthful types like yourself full of piss and vinegar.

I tired to make it a point that in one year alone, 2013, we produced 36 billion tons. That is only one years worth.

A total of 566 billion metric tons of carbon have already been added to the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land cover change since 1750.

He goes on to note we are about 28 years or less away from surpassing a trillion metric tons of CO2. What happens when you accumulate this? CO2 can and will be left in the air for about 1000 years before it exits the atmosphere having no affect on Earth. Until its processed out, it is accumulating. Many more times is being put into the atmosphere than is being processed out year after year.

Given we know we expel CO2 in the billions of tons each year and the fact that ppm of CO2 has risen alongside this fact, we can draw an induction that humans are playing a role.

Contrary to your assertion in the 1st paragraph above -- you've screwed up early in your post. The CO2 cycle budget shows that the Ocean and Land ANNUALLY toss up over 700 GTons of CO2 into the atmos. Humans? About 30GTons. That's less than 5%. It would be silly to asset that the ocean source and sink of CO2 is so carefully and naturally balanced that it alone could not vary by 5%. Of that 30Gtons, MOST of it comes from fraudulent accounting. Charging man for domestic cattle without subtracting off the clouds of buffalo that USED to roam the plains and such.

The residency time of CO2 in the Atmos is not a 1000 years. Hansen misuses the term to "simplify" the discussion about imbalances in the carbon cycle. If we built 300 nuclear plants today -- the CO2 "overload" would dissipate in decades.

You're gonna have to be more rigorous if you are constantly declaring victory..
AGW predictions are NOT BASED solely on the WARMING POWERS of CO2 as a GHGas. You believe that the planet is fragile, that even the SMALL 1degC change from CO2 as a GHGas will magically multiply into 4 or 8 degC.. THAT'S what I deny.. I'm not even concerned about giving you the warming power of CO2 as basic physics states. So what if we reach 500ppm CO2 and the earth has warmed by 1 degC? The NEXT DOUBLING all the way to 1000ppm CO2 will just add another 1degC (or so).

So WHEN do we hit 1000ppm CO2?

 

[gnarlylove]

Don't answer the questions I asked SSDD. Plus, why should I believe your unsourced claims? At least show me your sources. Be up front, is your data Land&Ocean net output or not?

For now, can we please drop the relationship between warming and CO2? I flippin know you think there is no link, that's why we need to strip away all these claims and reduce it to some basic claims. All I am talking about is the CO2 concentrations (total accumulation since 1750) in the atmosphere and if this has any correlation or causal relationship to human activity. The graph I provided shows a definite correlation between 1750 and rise of industry but this is not causal per se. So tell me what has changed for the planet to start emitting 100ppm more than the previous century? Oceans and Land have picked up their pace? Well, if the land has released more CO2 we can expect that comes from the destruction of carbon stores of forests and trees. As for the Ocean your saying it suddenly jumped in its CO2 output? Well, we know that 57% of CO2 is absorbed by the Oceans. So it seems like the other 43% is a release of CO2 which fits your claim. But why has it steadily increased alongside industry? Puzzling isn't it?

I haven't even mentioned this warms the planet. Let's stay clear of that argument for now so we don't confuse the causal links, if any.

 

[HenryBHough]

If 10,000 Global Warming activists gathered on The National Mall on the hottest of days and simultaneously flapped their arms......

Not a single one would fly.

But they'd feel good about having done their part to cool things down.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't answer the questions I asked SSDD. Plus, why should I believe your unsourced claims? At least show me your sources. Be up front, is your data Land&Ocean net output or not?

For now, can we please drop the relationship between warming and CO2? I flippin know you think there is no link, that's why we need to strip away all these claims and reduce it to some basic claims. All I am talking about is the CO2 concentrations (total accumulation since 1750) in the atmosphere and if this has any correlation or causal relationship to human activity. The graph I provided shows a definite correlation between 1750 and rise of industry but this is not causal per se. So tell me what has changed for the planet to start emitting 100ppm more than the previous century? Oceans and Land have picked up their pace? Well, if the land has released more CO2 we can expect that comes from the destruction of carbon stores of forests and trees. As for the Ocean your saying it suddenly jumped in its CO2 output? Well, we know that 57% of CO2 is absorbed by the Oceans. So it seems like the other 43% is a release of CO2 which fits your claim. But why has it steadily increased alongside industry? Puzzling isn't it?

I haven't even mentioned this warms the planet. Let's stay clear of that argument for now so we don't confuse the causal links, if any.

But you've already made a bad assertion.. And that was that the ocean balance couldn't possibly vary by 5%.. I gave you the numbers that I recollect and they are within a few percent of the LAND + OCEAN yearly spew into the sky.. Oceans and land split roughly equally with land being somewhat higher. Go check me. I've done this too many times and you need to be up to speed (because of your insistence on sticking to basics ) -- not me..

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider


Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Read more: The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider

I refuse to use Gton Carbon numbers on principle.. The correct units are in Gton of CO2. The former is just part of the propaganda lexicon.. So here it is from Abrahams brain at SkepticalScience. Doubt its right because of where it comes from -- but I'll accept it for now.

 

[SSDD]

Don't answer the questions I asked SSDD. Plus, why should I believe your unsourced claims? At least show me your sources. Be up front, is your data Land&Ocean net output or not?

For now, can we please drop the relationship between warming and CO2? I flippin know you think there is no link, that's why we need to strip away all these claims and reduce it to some basic claims. All I am talking about is the CO2 concentrations (total accumulation since 1750) in the atmosphere and if this has any correlation or causal relationship to human activity. The graph I provided shows a definite correlation between 1750 and rise of industry but this is not causal per se. So tell me what has changed for the planet to start emitting 100ppm more than the previous century? Oceans and Land have picked up their pace? Well, if the land has released more CO2 we can expect that comes from the destruction of carbon stores of forests and trees. As for the Ocean your saying it suddenly jumped in its CO2 output? Well, we know that 57% of CO2 is absorbed by the Oceans. So it seems like the other 43% is a release of CO2 which fits your claim. But why has it steadily increased alongside industry? Puzzling isn't it?

I haven't even mentioned this warms the planet. Let's stay clear of that argument for now so we don't confuse the causal links, if any.

Unless you can prove that X amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause the climate to change by X amount...there is no use to even discuss the topic...you may as well be discussing the carrot crop...

With regard to your claim that the oceans are absorbing 57% of the CO2....please, for petes sake, learn something. Study after study has found that the oceans are a net source of CO2 for the atmosphere...that means that they are outgassing more than they are absorbing...every damned claim you make is false. The sad thing is that I believe that you actually believe what you are saying.

And once more with feeling....CO2 does not have a causal link to warming....it has a weak correlatory link...nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

Don't answer the questions I asked SSDD. Plus, why should I believe your unsourced claims? At least show me your sources. Be up front, is your data Land&Ocean net output or not?

For now, can we please drop the relationship between warming and CO2? I flippin know you think there is no link, that's why we need to strip away all these claims and reduce it to some basic claims. All I am talking about is the CO2 concentrations (total accumulation since 1750) in the atmosphere and if this has any correlation or causal relationship to human activity. The graph I provided shows a definite correlation between 1750 and rise of industry but this is not causal per se. So tell me what has changed for the planet to start emitting 100ppm more than the previous century? Oceans and Land have picked up their pace? Well, if the land has released more CO2 we can expect that comes from the destruction of carbon stores of forests and trees. As for the Ocean your saying it suddenly jumped in its CO2 output? Well, we know that 57% of CO2 is absorbed by the Oceans. So it seems like the other 43% is a release of CO2 which fits your claim. But why has it steadily increased alongside industry? Puzzling isn't it?

I haven't even mentioned this warms the planet. Let's stay clear of that argument for now so we don't confuse the causal links, if any.

But you've already made a bad assertion.. And that was that the ocean balance couldn't possibly vary by 5%.. I gave you the numbers that I recollect and they are within a few percent of the LAND + OCEAN yearly spew into the sky.. Oceans and land split roughly equally with land being somewhat higher. Go check me. I've done this too many times and you need to be up to speed (because of your insistence on sticking to basics ) -- not me..

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider


Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Read more: The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider

I refuse to use Gton Carbon numbers on principle.. The correct units are in Gton of CO2. The former is just part of the propaganda lexicon.. So here it is from Abrahams brain at SkepticalScience. Doubt its right because of where it comes from -- but I'll accept it for now.

He can't understand the words that you are saying...it seems to be an unfortunate effect of drinking the koolaid.

 

[gnarlylove]

So you prefer to ignore the obvious correlation between the dawn of industry and rising CO2. Trust me, we can talk about CO2 and its relation to GHG and temperature but this is too complicated for us to discuss without loosing focus till we can account for the increase in the first place.

You claim man has nothing to do with rising carbon emissions (the 400ppm) and the Oceans are the sole cause. Well, many have admitted man's CO2 contributions are real but only 5%. Finally we are getting somewhere. What percent comes from the Oceans and what percent comes from human activity? I hope you have sources. Even an AGW cultists can claim man's activity is 5% of emissions while Oceans are at 95%. See? I just did. Do I need to back it up? Only when it doesn't agree with your preclusions.

I can agree the Oceans produce a net effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Oceans simply have not released that much to cause rates to climb 100ppm in a century. And the reason is, using your common argument, that the past has revealed no known mechanism to account for such changes in little more than a century.

Plus we have an OK understanding of the mechanisms in place. The Ocean's net out put is slim: 338-332=? well, you better tell me since I'm wrong. Yet you use this to account for the dramatic rise in CO2. If you disagree I must be using the wrong data.

So tell me, what is the net output of the Oceans in terms of CO2?
We know man was responsible for 32.8 billion metric tons last year alone (over half a trillion metric tons since industry began in 1750). At 5% for human activity, that means the Oceans account for a dramatic release in CO2 stores. Tell us about these new mechanisms that account for this unprecedented rise. It's unprecedented because it happened in such a short span. To be sure CO2 levels have changed a lot millions and billions of years ago but not as rapidly as this after such a stable streak of many millenia. There must be new mechanisms at play. Enlighten us...

 

[SSDD]

So you prefer to ignore the obvious correlation between the dawn of industry and rising CO2. Trust me, we can talk about CO2 and its relation to GHG and temperature but this is too complicated for us to discuss without loosing focus till we can account for the increase in the first place.

You prefer to ignore the much more obvious fact that the earth is exiting an ice age...oceans are warming as a result and in turn outgas CO2.

claim man has nothing to do with rising carbon emissions (the 400ppm) and the Oceans are the sole cause.

I don't think the oceans are the sole cause...the earth has plenty of CO2 making machinery on the land as well...the oceans however are responsible for the greater part.

Well, many have admitted man's CO2 contributions are real but only 5%. Finally we are getting somewhere. What percent comes from the Oceans and what percent comes from human activity? I hope you have sources. Even an AGW cultists can claim man's activity is 5% of emissions while Oceans are at 95%. See? I just did. Do I need to back it up? Only when it doesn't agree with your preclusions.

Do you ever do any research on your own?

I can agree the Oceans produce a net effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Oceans simply have not released that much to cause rates to climb 100ppm in a century. And the reason is, using your common argument, that the past has revealed no known mechanism to account for such changes in little more than a century.

Do you have any idea how vanishingly small 100ppm is? Any idea at all?

 

[gnarlylove]

We are making progress. Now show me what data supports the idea that oceans are accounting for large volumes of CO2. It will help me out since apparently I do no research. I think most people are aware we are exiting an ice age, that's a pretty well known fact. However, just because we can show GHGs are being released by the Oceans, doesn't mean it accounts for the bulk of it. We also known oceans absorb volumes of CO2 so that we need to talk in terms of a net effect. So where's your research? I'm not asking for you to prove me wrong or deny anything, I just want to know where your honestly valid conclusions are coming from.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you prefer to ignore the obvious correlation between the dawn of industry and rising CO2. Trust me, we can talk about CO2 and its relation to GHG and temperature but this is too complicated for us to discuss without loosing focus till we can account for the increase in the first place.

You claim man has nothing to do with rising carbon emissions (the 400ppm) and the Oceans are the sole cause. Well, many have admitted man's CO2 contributions are real but only 5%. Finally we are getting somewhere. What percent comes from the Oceans and what percent comes from human activity? I hope you have sources. Even an AGW cultists can claim man's activity is 5% of emissions while Oceans are at 95%. See? I just did. Do I need to back it up? Only when it doesn't agree with your preclusions.

I can agree the Oceans produce a net effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Oceans simply have not released that much to cause rates to climb 100ppm in a century. And the reason is, using your common argument, that the past has revealed no known mechanism to account for such changes in little more than a century.

Plus we have an OK understanding of the mechanisms in place. The Ocean's net out put is slim: 338-332=? well, you better tell me since I'm wrong. Yet you use this to account for the dramatic rise in CO2. If you disagree I must be using the wrong data.

So tell me, what is the net output of the Oceans in terms of CO2?
We know man was responsible for 32.8 billion metric tons last year alone (over half a trillion metric tons since industry began in 1750). At 5% for human activity, that means the Oceans account for a dramatic release in CO2 stores. Tell us about these new mechanisms that account for this unprecedented rise. It's unprecedented because it happened in such a short span. To be sure CO2 levels have changed a lot millions and billions of years ago but not as rapidly as this after such a stable streak of many millenia. There must be new mechanisms at play. Enlighten us...

First off -- The chart I gave you shows that CURRENTLY both the land and ocean are estimated to be NET SINKS of CO2, not sources.. You got the addition backwards. But both of them DO put 10 times the human contribution into the atmos yearly. And the atmos don't Giveafart about the SOURCE of the CO2. So what SINKS into the earth is about 1/3 to 1/2 of what man puts up there.

Secondly --- get some perspective here. ONE SPECIES -- Termites --- produce 4.4GTon of CO2 per year. And EVEN MORE in terms of methane "pollution". One measly specie is contributing 14% of the CO2 that all of mankind is producing.. Show me that you comprehend the magnitude of that observation...

 

[freedombecki]

[ame=http://youtu.be/SzmvmZYsQPg]Global Warming Hoax Explained - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

First off -- The chart I gave you shows that CURRENTLY both the land and ocean are estimated to be NET SINKS of CO2, not sources.. You got the addition backwards. But both of them DO put 10 times the human contribution into the atmos yearly. And the atmos don't Giveafart about the SOURCE of the CO2. So what SINKS into the earth is about 1/3 to 1/2 of what man puts up there.

There is a lot of current research finding that oceans and lakes and some areas of the land are net sources of CO2 in the atmosphere...not sinks. Another big error in the long list of errors regarding the cycle of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere.

BG - Abstract - Air?sea exchange of CO2 at a Northern California coastal site along the California Current upwelling system

Air-sea CO2 fluxes in the near-shore and intertidal zones influenced by the California Current - Reimer - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Prevalence of strong vertical CO2 and O2 variability in the top meters of the ocean - Calleja - 2013 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

BG - Abstract - Temporal and spatial variations of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes at three differently managed grasslands

Emissions of CH4 and CO2 from double rice cropping systems under varying tillage and seeding methods

Net CO2 exchange and carbon budgets of a three-year crop rotation following conversion of perennial lands to annual cropping in Manitoba, Canada

Fluxes of CO2 above a sugarcane plantation in Brazil

Do cover crops enhance N2O, CO2 or CH4 emissions from soil in Mediterranean arable systems?

Greenhouse gas emission from direct seeding paddy field under different rice tillage systems in central China

 

[skookerasbil]

First off -- The chart I gave you shows that CURRENTLY both the land and ocean are estimated to be NET SINKS of CO2, not sources.. You got the addition backwards. But both of them DO put 10 times the human contribution into the atmos yearly. And the atmos don't Giveafart about the SOURCE of the CO2. So what SINKS into the earth is about 1/3 to 1/2 of what man puts up there.

There is a lot of current research finding that oceans and lakes and some areas of the land are net sources of CO2 in the atmosphere...not sinks. Another big error in the long list of errors regarding the cycle of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere.

BG - Abstract - Air?sea exchange of CO2 at a Northern California coastal site along the California Current upwelling system

Air-sea CO2 fluxes in the near-shore and intertidal zones influenced by the California Current - Reimer - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Prevalence of strong vertical CO2 and O2 variability in the top meters of the ocean - Calleja - 2013 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

BG - Abstract - Temporal and spatial variations of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes at three differently managed grasslands

Emissions of CH4 and CO2 from double rice cropping systems under varying tillage and seeding methods

Net CO2 exchange and carbon budgets of a three-year crop rotation following conversion of perennial lands to annual cropping in Manitoba, Canada

Fluxes of CO2 above a sugarcane plantation in Brazil

Do cover crops enhance N2O, CO2 or CH4 emissions from soil in Mediterranean arable systems?

Greenhouse gas emission from direct seeding paddy field under different rice tillage systems in central China

Ooooooops!!!!!!



gnarly is pwned.



Clearly nobody knows shit about shit about this stuff........which is why the AGW contingent is losing. The world has yet to find a compelling reason to completely blow up their own economies over a theory. THAT we KNOW!!!


And here we have a thread nearing 3,000 posts!!! STILL.......not one global warming nutter has provided one single link to support their side winning!!

 

[flacaltenn]

First off -- The chart I gave you shows that CURRENTLY both the land and ocean are estimated to be NET SINKS of CO2, not sources.. You got the addition backwards. But both of them DO put 10 times the human contribution into the atmos yearly. And the atmos don't Giveafart about the SOURCE of the CO2. So what SINKS into the earth is about 1/3 to 1/2 of what man puts up there.

There is a lot of current research finding that oceans and lakes and some areas of the land are net sources of CO2 in the atmosphere...not sinks. Another big error in the long list of errors regarding the cycle of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere.

BG - Abstract - Air?sea exchange of CO2 at a Northern California coastal site along the California Current upwelling system

Air-sea CO2 fluxes in the near-shore and intertidal zones influenced by the California Current - Reimer - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Prevalence of strong vertical CO2 and O2 variability in the top meters of the ocean - Calleja - 2013 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

BG - Abstract - Temporal and spatial variations of soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes at three differently managed grasslands

Emissions of CH4 and CO2 from double rice cropping systems under varying tillage and seeding methods

Net CO2 exchange and carbon budgets of a three-year crop rotation following conversion of perennial lands to annual cropping in Manitoba, Canada

Fluxes of CO2 above a sugarcane plantation in Brazil

Do cover crops enhance N2O, CO2 or CH4 emissions from soil in Mediterranean arable systems?

Greenhouse gas emission from direct seeding paddy field under different rice tillage systems in central China

Good point.. This is another case where taking "Global Averages" of every important climate parameter actually hurts understanding of the system. SEASONALLY, and REGIONALLY, I'm sure that land and ocean goes both ways. That's what makes analysis of the this crucial item more difficult when all that information is removed and sweeping generalizations are made. Dr. Roy Spencer has shown some interesting Inter-Annual comparisons of CO2 that shows how variable the natural exchanges are..

 

[Abraham3]

400 ppm current CO2 level / 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2 level = an increase of 42.9% not 30%

Humanity is responsible for essentially ALL of that increase, not 1%

Sorry, not possible. More magical thinking on your part.

If so, it's the magical thinking on the part of virtually the world's entire science community. Pray tell, what do you think to be not possible and why?

 

[skookerasbil]

Record setting cold events in January in the US............


4,406



4406 U.S. record cold temperatures in January ? 1073 Snowfall records | Climate Depot

 

[gnarlylove]

Dumping a bunch of abstracts with a handful of actual articles is bad edict. But assuming I could browse the internet and find the full articles on other sites or download them is not something an untrained person could do. You think I'm stupid a dirt SSDD so why would you expect me to have the ability to peruse your articles (could I say red herrings since they distract more than offer support?)

Well, I took about 10 seconds of effort and gleaned this:

It is not well understood whether coastal upwelling is a net CO2 source to the atmosphere or a net CO2 sink to the ocean...

Found in the first sentence in the first link.

Maybe its opposite day but that looks to support the idea that the oceans are not the source of our recent increase of CO2 in the last 2 centuries. Granted its coast Cali which doesn't represent the whole ocean but heed your own words SSDD: I AM STUPID. So you gotta present this shit in a way I can understand. It also helps if it actually supports your conclusions but hey, I'm not SSDD so I won't hold you to such harsh standards. I'd especially like to see support for your idea that oceans and land (not MAN) account for our latest surge in CO2 (and is predicted to climb to 450ppm within a 2-3 decades--and to think it took 2 centuries for CO2 to climb 100ppm, now it will take half that time @ current pace--hmmmm seems to correspond to MAN's capacity to expel CO2 with pop. growth).

Though I appreciate your efforts to cite sources, you failed to present a digestible response, let me offer the real scoop so we can keep our discussion rolling:

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.[19] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[20] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[21] These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

I encourage you to read more here under "Sources of carbon dioxide"

The biosphere operates in harmony, it has and will continue to manage itself irrespective of humanity. Industry arrived and an imbalance (of relatively low portions) began. Even though anthropogenic pollution seems insignificant in size compared to the land and ocean sources--and it is--we have introduced an imbalance, a variable that was hitherto not extant.

To keep denying industry has nothing to do with this disrupted balance is to deny the air and water you breathe and drink. Either pony-up and realize the best explanation fits the data: human activity has largely been responsible for 400ppm. Increases to 450ppm are predicted in 2-3 decades and directly correspond to human activity and our increased capacity to expel CO2. Indeed, nothing much has changed in 2 centuries except for what men and beautiful women have done. Change rarely happens on global scales in such short epochs except during high Volcanic activity.

We are not connecting CO2 to GHG and I don't want to hear any reply mention those 2 dirty words (*wispers* "climate change"). I am merely offering the best explanation for how we shot up 100ppm since 1750. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This pause has put nothing but egg on the face of warmers Science put our entire creditability on the line for this and our case with the American people is being harmed. This is what makes me sad as this effects more then just this issue.