...rather than absorbing more and more and becoming more and more acidic. Either way its a nightmare really. Time to do karma yoga.

Time to become a hard core communist/leftist working for Indymedia,

Time to change.

Time to conserve.

Time to panik!

Time to die.

Time to sigh...oh yeah baby,

Time to take some acid,

Time to unite,

Time to run to hills and hide,

Time to flee,

Time to hide,

Time to join a group,

Time to set off some fireworks,

or whatever

I don't get it.

We are told that human activity is producing greenhouse gases that are warming the Earth so much we are in peril.

Now you're saying that the oceans are no longer absorbing greenhouse gas thus making matters worse.

But are you saying that industrial activity is CAUSING the oceans to stop aborbing greenhouse gas? Is driving cars somehow messing up the oceans? If so, how?

If not, why is human activity somehow to blame? Is in fact this global warming thing little to do with human activity? And why has the oceans all of a sudden decided to stop absorbing greenhouse gas at a time when it would have been very convenient for them to absorb?

Sorry, don't get it.

the point is that the problem has been identified, and this is yet another reason to attempt to rein back human-created (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases such as CO2 you immediately try to use this worrying information to reopen a debate that is no longer a debate in the climate science community (the IPCC report the consensus of the planet's CLIMATE scientists, not just anybody with letters after their name that is funded by lobby groups representing the oil industry). The article states clearly that this is a positive feedback loop. this is a term from cybernetics, which admittedly deals mostly with closed systems, and the planet's climate-oceanic-biosphere-human system in its totality is an amazingly complex but mostly closed system: only solar (and in this context, irrelevant cosmic) radiation enters from the outside. the reference to feedback means that
a)human-created greenhouses gases are raising global mean temperatures (accepted)
b)changed overall planetary climate is affecting the biosphere (e.g. the organic matter in the oceans that absorb CO2 under 'normal' (stable, equilibrium) conditions, and
c)this means that the new situation is one which will speed up the process of raising global CO2 levels and thus globally averaged temperatures...in a speeded up way and with unpredictable but doubtless catastrophic consequences (although individual weather events cannot be ascribed with certainty to climate change their increased incidence CAN)

All clear now?

It may be too late to meaningfully lower CO2 emissions from human sources, but attempting to do so to slow the effects is a 'no regrets' policy....and we should do it. see youtube for someone explaining an argument that noone he has presented it to can disagree with. sorry that's a bit vague, don't have the link....

"b)changed overall planetary climate is affecting the biosphere (e.g. the organic matter in the oceans that absorb CO2 under 'normal' (stable, equilibrium) conditions..."

So, industrial activity is changing the living things in the oceans. Hmm. Oceans are pretty big. There are five of them, aren't they? They take up most of the surface of the planet. This is some impact.

Atmospheric CO2 levels since around 1850 has increase from c300 parts per million to c400 parts per million. That is, it's gone up by 100 parts per million - by 0.001%. The average temperature increase has been 0.7 degrees C.

Doesn't sound much, does it? But enough, apparently, to 'change the biosphere' so much that it's not "absorbing" this small amount of CO2.

And what on Earth (no pun intended) are "normal conditions"? Was it normal during one of our ice ages when CO2 levels were 15 times higher than they are now. (Given it was an ice age, it doesn't sound like global warming to me.) Or during the first half of the last century when temperatures were just as high as they are now?

And how much more CO2 will there be in the atmosphere thanks to these overheated lifeforms in our oceans? 1 part per million? 6? Surely not another 100?

I'm sure this news will scare the beejezus out of many people. And there'll be more demands that China and India don't develop. And more "environmentalists" will be running around the World Bank ordering that some countries aren't given loans and running around Africa telling people not to build factories because they'll destroy the planet.

As for me, I just don't get it.

if you genuinely don't get it and are not just a troll, then lurk on over to realclimate.org and get it explained to you by people who study the climate for a living.

I suppose I could say this again, for the benefit of those who refuse to listen:

Carbon dioxide is the fourth most numerous gas in the atmosphere, after nitrogen, oxygen and argon. These three gases, which make up over 99% of the atmosphere, have no effect at all on the greenhouse effect. Misleading maths and fantasistical sounding numbers may be due to stupidity, but I'm starting to think that strait-out lies are being told for some reason by people who don't want the reality of climate change to be realised.

..to the last two posts. saying that the percentages are small is totally irrelevant and a smoke screen. look up recent guardian/independent articles, UEA climate people say that the jump in atmospheric CO2 concentrations must be due to the reduction of effectiveness of sinks, and they say this is due to human influence (via increasing atmos and oceanic temperatures). i think they quote an 87% certainty on this, which is a bit under the 90-95% expected before you cna say it is 'proven' in scientific journals etc, but still pretty convincing. have you never had a houseplant die on you? temperature can affect biotic matter quite easily. also have a look for the news on the siberian permafrost melting for the first time since the ice age (a little worrying?), these bogs have tons of methane locked in them, and if it comes bubbling up, with its much higher GHG potential than CO2, we might as well kiss our arses goodbye....in my humble PhD in climate change policy opinion...