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

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

And that is a conclusion that is open to healthy debate. CO2 levels
fluctuate -- even those which are man-made. Our own contributions are also
absorbed back into the carbon cycle. Perhaps it takes a bit longer -- and
perhaps not. This statement from the paper I cited is in direct conflict
with the claims made by Al Gore et al:

"The terrestrial biosphere was probably roughly in balance during
the late 1970s and the 1980s. Over this period, CO2 release
from tropical land-use changes and the average CO2 uptake by
the terrestrial biosphere seem to have almost cancelled, in spite
of year-to-year variations. From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial
biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was
back to its usual pace."



That was his rationalization of the global cooling experiences for the
40 years after World War 2.

A quick glance at the graphs of historical global warming cycles show
that we're just in another one. The timing and rate are predictable and
on schedule.

At best, its a toss-up as to whether CO2 causes or is a product of
global warming. But historical evidence corrected for outgasing would
indicate that we need at least another magnitude or two of CO2 level to
really impact global warming.