Dumping a bunch of abstracts with a handful of actual articles is bad edict. But assuming I could browse the internet and find the full articles on other sites or download them is not something an untrained person could do. You think I'm stupid a dirt SSDD so why would you expect me to have the ability to peruse your articles (could I say red herrings since they distract more than offer support?)
Well, I took about 10 seconds of effort and gleaned this:
It is not well understood whether coastal upwelling is a net CO2 source to the atmosphere or a net CO2 sink to the ocean...
Found in the first sentence in the first link.
Maybe its opposite day but that looks to support the idea that the oceans are not the source of our recent increase of CO2 in the last 2 centuries. Granted its coast Cali which doesn't represent the whole ocean but heed your own words SSDD: I AM STUPID. So you gotta present this shit in a way I can understand. It also helps if it actually supports your conclusions but hey, I'm not SSDD so I won't hold you to such harsh standards. I'd especially like to see support for your idea that oceans and land (not MAN) account for our latest surge in CO2 (and is predicted to climb to 450ppm within a 2-3 decades--and to think it took 2 centuries for CO2 to climb 100ppm, now it will take half that time @ current pace--hmmmm seems to correspond to MAN's capacity to expel CO2 with pop. growth).
Though I appreciate your efforts to cite sources, you failed to present a digestible response, let me offer the real scoop so we can keep our discussion rolling:
Wikipedia said:
Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.[19] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[20] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[21] These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
I encourage you to read more here under "Sources of carbon dioxide"
The biosphere operates in harmony, it has and will continue to manage itself irrespective of humanity. Industry arrived and an imbalance (of relatively low portions) began. Even though anthropogenic pollution seems insignificant in size compared to the land and ocean sources--and it is--we have introduced an imbalance, a variable that was hitherto not extant.
To keep denying industry has nothing to do with this disrupted balance is to deny the air and water you breathe and drink. Either pony-up and realize the best explanation fits the data: human activity has largely been responsible for 400ppm. Increases to 450ppm are predicted in 2-3 decades and directly correspond to human activity and our increased capacity to expel CO2. Indeed, nothing much has changed in 2 centuries except for what men and beautiful women have done. Change rarely happens on global scales in such short epochs except during high Volcanic activity.
We are not connecting CO2 to GHG and I don't want to hear any reply mention those 2 dirty words (*wispers* "climate change"). I am merely offering the best explanation for how we shot up 100ppm since 1750. Nothing more, nothing less.
Science put our entire creditability on the line for this and our case with the American people is being harmed. This is what makes me sad as this effects more then just this issue.
