Now the logic behind man made global warming has two parts
- The CO2 increase is created by man through the burning of fossil fuels
- The CO2 increase and the CO2 increase alone causes (catastrophic) global warming
These blog posts address the first argument, one which seems self evident to the layman. It is self evident simply because most people do not understand equilibrium.
The primary and essential argument behind Man made Global Warming is that CO2 generated from fossil fuel has increased our CO2 in the air, like tipping water into a bucket. Has anyone actually proved this? Can it be established? The answer is that it can be utterly disproven by examining C14 levels.
If the CO2 increase is not due to the burning of coal, oil and wood, there is no man made global warming, regardless of any computer models and climate scientists. The whole chain of logic collapses. I must say any suggestion that this is not true meets with stiff opposition.
With this as a premise, people then start to work out where the CO2 goes including the plant absorption, plant decay and burning and breathing ocean exchanges and perhaps more.
However they are wrong. CO2 is in balance, in chemical equilibrium. In equilibrium, you can add a great deal to the air and the proprition of CO2 will not change. This is simple chemical physics, the science of equilibrium which is rarely mentioned. In the real world of physical chemistry, if you add CO2 to the air, a lot of it goes into the water. The question is, how much?
If CO2 cannot be changed, why is CO2 increasing? The answer is simple and nothing to do with fossil fuel.
As said, the amount of CO2 dissolved at any given temperature and under a given pressure is sensitive to both. If the average temperature of the oceans, the vast storehouse of CO2 has increased about 1C, the fact that it contains so much more CO2 than the air will dramatically amplify even the tiniest release of CO2 as with increasing temperature.
People have created quite complex models the fate of carbon. These Carbon cycles attempt to reconcile CO2 like an accountant, dependent on numerous observations and calculations like an accounting system. However models which ignore the fundamental rule of gaseous exchange and equilibrium are doomed to failure.
What is quite contradictory in the whole idea that the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuel, is that scientists acknowledge the exchanges between the air and the biosphere and the water, but who determines how much CO2 stays in the air? Why should the extra CO2 not vanish in the oceans or at least a large part of it? Why should our addition of CO2 just stay there even while they are being swapped out for other CO2 molecules? How can anyone say that man has caused the 50% increase and accept massive CO2 exchanges which have no reason or logic to maintain this increase. Why shouldn't the extra CO2 just vanish and the old level remain? What sets the level of CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere? For some reason the increase is assumed to be preserved, by rules and forces and for reasons no one has explained. All the existing body of physical chemistry controlling these exchanges tell us the proportion of CO2 in the air should be set by temperature and pressure and nothing else. Could it be that scientists are deliberately ignoring the science because the public does not understand the principles of equilibrium?
I did find this good diagram with a graphical illustration of equilibrium. In this model, if you were dump a bucket of water into the stable system on the RHS, it would quickly return to the equilibrium level where the amount coming in equalled the amount going out. Yes, the total amount of water in the system would increase, but the ultimate level would stay the same.