KLC Lewis wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

KLC Lewis wrote:

No, you're focusing on the wrong issue. Take a look at the article again.
The whole point is the carbon *flux*. Without *our* input, the flux, on
average, is balanced (i.e. natural emitters = natural sinks). Thus the
*Increase* is due to man. The magnitude of the normal flux is irrelevant
since without us it's balanced. There are normal oscillations in
atmospheric carbon due to the many competing processes in
operation(emitters & sinks), but with addition of anthropogenic processes
those oscillations are now centered about an increasing trend line. It's
the rise in the mean carbon concentration about which those processes
oscillate that is the issue.

Keith Hughes

I understand what the article was about, as I'm the one who referenced it.

Well, the latter is clear, the former seems quite doubtful.

I'm not stating that Man has no effect on CO2 levels, as clearly we do. But
the fact remains that the CO2 that WE generate is a mere fraction of the
overall CO2 put into the atmosphere, and the paper in question documents
that fact.

What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean
atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is
totally irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that
sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't
just look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is
negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources
have offsetting sinks.

So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural
processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the
position you seem to think it does.

Keith Hughes