Sadly, your analogy is flawed. This is where something that is just theoretical, and a flawed theory at that, fails when measured against reality. Even with a linear input, it is very possible to fill a leaky bucket. It all depends on how big the leak is.
If you look at the rate of increase of CO2, it isn't a linear function. Like the consumption of fossil fuel, it too is an exponential curve. Granted, it isn't quite as steep as the FF consumption, but still is an exponential curve. We are burning FFs far faster than the system can absorb it. So the leak just isn't big enough and it isn't growing fast enough.
Thanks for playing! Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave!
Why are you bringing up radiolarians? You do know their shells are silica and not calcium carbonate? Again, all of the carbon sinks are not sequestering carbon as fast as we are releasing it into the air.
And yes, CO2 levels were much higher in the past than they are now. In the process of getting there, over 90% of the existing species were wiped on in The Great Dying. Trees and other plants included.
Really, your lack of education is appalling. |
