Well, looks like the discussion has moved on a bit, which is no bad thing. Just one little point - the reference to increased acidity is a bit of, shall we say, hand waving. The sea is alkaline, a reduction in alkalinity doesn’t make something more acidic when there is no acidity to increase. If the ph was below 7 to begin with, then, yep, more acidic. But it isn’t, so it can’t be.
What are the other emission sources? You can’t claim an increase in one of multiple sources is the only contributorifyoucsnt nail all of the sources and show no increase in them
Mondeoman, when you take a comment like the one I made above, ie, "fossil fuels and cement manufacture are major contributors to the growth in atmospheric CO2" and change the word "major" to "only" and attribute it to me, it seems just a bit unfair.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have grown about an average of 17 billion tonnes each year for the last 10 years regardless of how it got there. The emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture are reasonably well known and are about 36 billion tonnes each year. Logic tells us that without the annual addition of these 36 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, the atmospheric CO2 levels would be declining.
Whether it makes sense to do reduce anthropogenic emissions is a completely different discussion.
It’s a discussion, don’t get too bent out of shape. You got the gist of what I was saying,
As for the comment about "logic", it doesn’t work that way. We (as in humans) don’t understand the carbon cycle enough,, nor have we identified all of the sources and sinks to male claims like that.
Sig, apart from the word "suddenly", do you disagree with Naut’s analysis?
Yes. Earth, at present, has approx 400ppmv in the atmosphere. There is a normal flux during seasons. Burning FF adds to the overall level.
To have a sudden large change in CO2 levels would require a black swan event of extreme magnitude.
The 400ppmv will be around for awhile, which is very beneficial for mankind. If the Yellowstone Caldera blows, all bets are off. It would require that type of event to change atmospheric CO2 levels in a short time period.
‘The most recent study doesn't project what its findings could mean for the future, particularly with climate change warming much of the globe over the next century. Extrapolating the results of this study for this purpose would only provide speculations not based on evidence," Gasparrini said. However, he has received a grant from the United Kingdom to study that and hopes "we will answer this question soon," he said.
So, in simple terms, give me money and i’ll make shit up, any shit you want. Science today in a nutshell, sold to the highest bidder.