To counter significant new CO2 inputs that are *not* balanced by carbon sinks, you must increase the planet's rate of sequestration, to trap more of the carbon taken from the atmosphere
Here's just a thought. Everyone keeps talking about how we're continually adding more C02 to the atmosphere, but it's rarely mentioned how deforestation in the world's natural carbon sinks might be affecting the overall CO2 levels our planet is seeing. Last time I checked this stuff is food more pretty much everything that's green on our and it's not like they've got to pony up their hard earned cash to buy it. We're practically giving it away.
Unfortunately, the studies done thusfar show that the rate of natural sinks' carbon sequestration ability is declining, not rising, as our planet warms and our CO2 concentrations rise
Pretty much what I was saying. Did their studies happen to include any hypothesis as to why this was happening? I'm thinking giant swaths of rainforest razed for (tasty tasty) Argentinian beef might have something to do with it.
A quick google gets me this (which admittedly probably isn't the most reliable source, but is on par with some of the info coming out of the AGW camp)
We are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
So an 8% decrease in the world's carbon sinks vs how much of an increase in the overall level in the atmospheric CO2 level? I'm sure it's out there and I'd love to be informed, but each time this argument comes up the only facets of the model are discussed are the increase in the C02 levels produced and I've yet to see anything that takes into account the reduction in the carbon sink that we've created. I'm somewhat still on the fence as to whether the recent changes we've seen in climate change are man made, natural or a mix of both. Rationally I have to assume we've had some effect, but I'm not sure it's entirely the effect that is continually coming out of the mouths of the 'AGW faithful'.
Did you miss this? I'll say $29 for proper Exchange connectivity out of the box is more than a worthwhile investment.
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam