Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[pocaracas]

How do you know that?

Cause I read the science of the carbon cycle in 2011. The emitters outbalance the sinks without anthropogenic CO2.

Care to share a link to that work?
But, if there is an imbalance without anthropogenic CO2, then this imbalance only gets worse with anthropogenic CO2.
OR do you have data that supports that anthropogenic CO2 has a negligible contribution to the plot I showed in a previous post?

Indeed, they are not. They saturate, and they are reaching the saturation point, disturbing the whole food chain in the ocean, which in turn disrupts the land based food chain.

Have you considered that over-fishing may be a greater cause to ocean acidification than atmospheric CO2 levels? CO2 levels have some effect, I agree, but it's only minor overall to the total effect of ocean acidification.

Over-fishing? It may be one more factor to be thrown into the pot.
From what I remember of reading about this in that National Geographic article I linked before, the main CO2 absorbers in the ocean are shellfish, with a big impact on plankton.
Global ocean acidification may be affected by over-fishing in areas where plankton doesn't get replenished... but I'm not convinced the lack of fish would lead to lack of plankton.... If anything, I'd imagine it would lead to a (at least temporary) increase of plankton. But I have no data either way, so I have nothing to substantiate it. Do you?

Pretend? The plot shows data. There may be a lag, but they do correlate.
Of course, "correlation doesn't mean causation".... but it's a good starting point.

CO2 lags behind temperature by 4/5th of a millennia on average! You know as well as I do that CO2 did not drive natural climate change, but rather CO2 levels are responsive to it.

In the past, maybe... Right now, not so sure. Do note the spike in CO2 in the last few data points of the plot in the previous post. I'm not sure those points are outliers.