[[Instead there was a rise from 0.028% to 0.04% and in fact the oceans are now absorbing CO2 net, instead of releasing it.]]
That’s not true- when temperastures rise, CO2 gets released- that’ts the way it’s always been- temperatures =rise first, THEN CO2 rises- many years later-
[[We would have gone from 0.028% CO2 to 0.029% with that natural warming.]]
And you’re able to predict this how again? All you are doing is taking figures of heat rises, correlating it, without any proof, to the increase of CO2, and basing your predicitons on those figures- The fact is the temps were rising well before the increases in CO2 levels but ‘scioentists’ today don’t like to use those figures to base their calculations on because it is contrary to their gloom and doom ‘man is evil’ scenario instead, they look at temps in past few decades, AFTE the oceans released CO2 AFTER the temps began rising, and claim the CO2 is the cause of the rise in temps (and they completely ignore and ridicule anyone hwo points out that cyclical warming trends follow well established sun spot activities as well as other factors such as el and la ninja’s etc-
[[There is almost no doubt about all these facts barring some vastly unforeseen natural net source of CO2.]]
You are using the term ‘vast’ to describe just 0.04% of the atmosphere— 0.04% of anything should not be deemed ‘vast’
[[The rise from 0.028% to 0.04% is essentially manmade.]]
So? Temperatures have always fluctuated- even more than they have today- before the industrial age- man’s insignificant contribution to an insignificant TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 level means nothing in terms of causing global climate change- Our great lakes were formed by miles thick glaciers melting and carving land mass to form the lakes- BEFORE the industrial age-
[[Man’s contribution is in one direction.]]
Not true- but so what? man’s contribibution is still so insignificantly small that it is absolutely meaningless in terms of global climate change-
That’s not true- when temperastures rise, CO2 gets released- that’ts the way it’s always been- temperatures =rise first, THEN CO2 rises- many years later- That used to be true, but right now man's contribution far exceeds the natural rise we would have seen.
[[We would have gone from 0.028% CO2 to 0.029% with that natural warming.]]
And you’re able to predict this how again? All you are doing is taking figures of heat rises, correlating it, without any proof, to the increase of CO2,
There is about 90ppm rise in CO2 with about 8C rise in temperature:
These ice core estimates of temperature and CO2 are not particularly controversial. We must acknowledge that there are possible spikes that would be completely hidden since the data points making up the measurements can be centuries apart in the older cores. Nonetheless the ratio observed in the cores is what we care about here. There is about a 10ppm rise for each 1C rise in temperature. Following the end of the Little Ice Age we had about a 1C natural rise in temperature which should produce a 10ppm rise in CO2 with some lag that many people estimate to be about 800 years.
You are using the term ‘vast’ to describe just 0.04% of the atmosphere
For "vast" I meant only the fact that we should not expect a large unknown natural source to appear through scientific study. We can't rule it out (e.g. previously undiscovered underwater volcanoes) but such a large source would be a complete surprise.
man’s contribibution is still so insignificantly small that it is absolutely meaningless in terms of global climate change-
Man's contributions are well measured from oil production, cement production and other economic data, e.g. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm OTOH, natural sources are not particularly well measured and the total flows are large compared to man's contribution. But the natural flows go in both directions in various locations and seasons. For example as the southern hemisphere absorbs CO2 right now, the northern hemisphere is releasing right now (NH winter). So such balancing fluxes, although large, can be safely ignored because of the offsetting effects.