In fact that chart is the source of my claim in Post 200 that Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of a massive outgassing of CO2, while the ice core data are taken from an area surrounded by the deepest CO2 sink. ... You falsely imply that I misplaced Hawaii on that chart.
No, I figure you knew where it was. I place Hawaii at about 20 N Latitude, 160 W Longitude. That puts it in an area on the map that's light green or light blue. Those are indicative of areas with small negative fluxes (sink areas) or small positive fluxes (source areas). Most of the major source is in the eastern Pacific south of the Equator. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of a massive outgassing of CO2".
Sorry to ask about two issues at one time, but I was pretty sure I knew where Hawaii was on that plot.
>>Do you (or your thesis, if you prefer) contend that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations commencing approximately 1850 A.D. (as seen in ice core data) is due entirely to degassing of CO2 from a warming oceanic water column?
Ans.: No.
>>In fact that chart is the source of my claim in Post 200 that Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of a massive outgassing of CO2, while the ice core data are taken from an area surrounded by the deepest CO2 sink. ... You falsely imply that I misplaced Hawaii on that chart.
>>No, I figure you knew where it was. I place Hawaii at about 20 N Latitude, 160 W Longitude. That puts it in an area on the map that's light green or light blue. Those are indicative of areas with small negative fluxes (sink areas) or small positive fluxes (source areas). Most of the major source is in the eastern Pacific south of the Equator. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of a massive outgassing of CO2".
Ans.: My version of the chart was animated by month for 1990, so it had 12 different views. See for example http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.LDEO/.Takahashi/.dataset_documentation.html. Run the animation and you’ll see large variations in the intense outgassing directly south and east of Hawaii. The Islands can be seen on this series as about a one pixel spec.
For my comments I also relied on descriptions of the atmospheric flow from the surface at the equator. The air initially rises, divides north and south, slowly heads poleward, and begins to cool. It appears to me that the heavier CO2-rich air should settle and feed the prevailing northeast trade winds that bathe Hawaii year round. All this is in lieu of any discovered analysis of the global CO2 pattern. After all, a massive amount of CO2 is emitted from the eastern Equatorial Pacific, and it has to go somewhere by some reasonable route.
3. You explained that the physics to which Gavin Schmidt referred when he said I didn’t under the physics was solar insolation. What in my papers relies on solar insolation, or in any other way is misunderstood physics?
4. You said the work on my blog, by its “tone and attitude”, is pure pseudoscience, providing a link to Rory Coker, “Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience”. Will you do the courtesy of citing each passage from my blog postings, whether tone and attitude or not, and the corresponding category in bold from Coker by which you conclude my work is pseudoscience?