Sea and air contain 38 and 0.7 trillion tons of co2 respectively. What is effect of mans .006 trillion tons/yr?

The effect is increased warming. Part of the problem with trying to break it down to raw numbers like this is that we don't have accurate data on things like biomass absorption, there are variations in the estimates of total biomass consumption and flux, one estimate indicates that around 120Bt CO2 is absorbed by plants each year and 119Bt is re-emitted. There are also other GHGs influencing the warming, and temp influences the CO2 equilibrium as you hinted at (water temperature not atmospheric temp, there is a big difference).

Plus there are other factors in the buildup of CO2 during a glacial maximum relating to reduced plant productivity. We KNOW that the oceans are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 by looking at the chemical signature of the carbon molecules. Fossil fuels have carbon from more than 300 million years ago, the carbon in the oceans is volcanic in origin and when in the atmosphere is bombarded by cosmic rays which alter the chemical structure creating different isotopes.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is known to be from fossil fuels can be measured by this isotope ratio. Note how my source for this fact is from a peer reviewed scientific resource and not a blog. Quay et al (1992).

Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 Evidence. Science 3 April 1992: 256 (5053), 74-79. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/50….

An enhanced greenhouse effect and rising temperatures. While the anthropogenic contribution may appear small when cast in relative numbers, the effect is compounded every year, and while you claim that "...atmosphere and oceans are constantly exchanging to maintain equilibrium..." it is a shifting equilibrium with increasing amounts of CO2 in BOTH the atmosphere and ocean, so not only is the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere enhanced, but the pH of the oceans is decreasing in response to this increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which may endanger many shell-building organisms. You should also understand the it's obvious that the oceans do not absorb CO2 quick enough to prevent global warming, since the Keeling Curve is RISING.

Long period cycles have been important to Earth's climate, but short-term anthropogenic forcing is stronger, EDIT for Gunny: Stronger in terms of temperature change per unit time. Those other things you mention are real or imagined consequences of the temperature change. Perhaps instead of criticizing you might actually try answering the question.

You're getting better, but 30 gigatons/year are 0.03 trillion tones/year.

Man does not contribute 6.2 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. I believe man contributes 6.3 billion tons of Carbon into the atmosphere. Man's CO2 emissions amount to over 30 billion tons or 30 gigatons.

I provided a link to this in the last response I provided to you after you answered another question. Milankovitch cycles do not contribute enough of a change to warming and cooling to effect temperatures on this short of a time scale. The point is that both the atmosphere and the ocean are increasing in both CO2 content and heat content.

Half of what humans emit, 30gt/y, is staying in the atmosphere while the other half is being absorbed by carbon sinks, such as the ocean, which is the reason they are currently decreasing in pH. You are alluding to Henry's Law, which states that at a constant temperature the exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean reaches equilibrium, and Le Chatelier's Principal, which states that if a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume or partial pressure then the equilibrium shifts and a new equilibrium is established. We are changing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by taking carbon out of the geological carbon cycle and pumping it back into the biological carbon cycle.

This is increasing the partial pressure that CO2 has in the atmosphere and the oceans are absorbing it attempting to reach equilibrium. Maxx: Breathing does not contribute to additional CO2 to the biological carbon cycle as the CO2 we exhale is already part of that cycle. How many times do you need to be told this before you understand?

Good observation but let's say it more simply. Of all the CO2 in the air people only contribute about three percent of it. That means 97% is from sources we don't control.

Even if CO2 was causing the current warming trend, which it is NOT, but even if it was, people have NO hope of controlling the amount of CO2 in the air. Of the 3% we contribute, much of that is absolutely necessary. We've got to heat our homes, we've got to breath, we've got to grow food, we've got to go to work.

The amount of CO2 produced by humans that we are obligated to create in order to live is a large part of that 3%, I think probably more than half of it. So now, we are down to maybe being able to cut perhaps 1.0 --- to 1.5 percent of the 3% we contribute. That's is far, far too small an amount to do anything substantial, so thank goodness its NOT really CO2 causing the problem, because we certainty could not do a thing about it.

These are good videos on the Global Warming scam, watch if you have time: The Great Global Warming Swindle youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYh… Global Warming Doomsday Called Off video.google.com/videoplay?docid=….

If you were sincere you would at least use real data. You make untrue statements about the causes of warming being due to orbital changes when the evidence says otherwise. Why do you do that?

You ask a strange question, in a system at equilibrium, any increase in one component will shift the equilibrium. That is kind of basic logic. So adding any amount of carbon to the organic carbon cycle, will alter the equilibrium point.

The amount in the cycle is not really that important, it is the addition of carbon from outside the cycle that is. If you don't, can't or won't understand that basic fact, you have issues serious ones. You suggest that the human contribution is unavoidable.

If the only contribution that is relevant to the issue is that from burning of fossil fuels, why or how is this unavoidable? There are other sources of energy. You suggested we need to breathe, you ought to understand that any carbon we exhale as CO2 is already part of the organic cycle and has zero impact.

Again is this an attempt to deliberately confuse or are you really so ill informed?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.