There are only those two options, so yes....
Ok.. so basically all the high-fequency energy (both visible light and short-wavelength-infrared) gets absorbed and all of it is emitted back at high-wavelength-infrared radiation. Well... that's a wavelength band where the sun has little to offer.
Ok now the rest.
Localized variations well in excess of 15ppm is a yearly thing in the northern hemisphere
A seasonal variation of about 15ppm is not very significant in terms of global warming. We're discussing the result of a 100 ppm increase and it's hardly noticeable in the world. The increase needs to be a lot bigger to make a real difference. So who cares about a 15 ppm variation... the global warming discussion is really about what will happen if we get an increase of 1,000 or 2,000 ppm.
It's the oceans that produce that vast majority of our fresh air. It's the oceans that clean out the CO2, not just storing, but converting it through photosynthesis with all the plants and algae that live in it
Uhm... yeah. And that life will perish if the oceanic temperatures become over 40 degrees celcius. The only oceanic life left will be around the polar regions.
The ice cores are also in line with air flask readings. It is a grievous sin in science to simply decide one source is right when there are obvious potential reasons it would be wrong. They did not say where they took the samples from. If they took them from small equatorial islands out in the middle of the ocean, they should be pretty accurate. If they did not, they'd be terrible gauges of average yearly CO2.
I'm not saying it's wrong... I'm just saying the ice cores are no good to determine short-period trends in CO2. They are just not the type of medium for that. I think they do have a good time resolution for temperature, after all temperature is determined from the ice crystals and those cannot migrate. From this alone you know that T and CO2 from the ice cores have quite a different time resolution. And once time resolution is lost then no matter how many corrective filters you throw at it, you can never geit back.
So all I'm saying is, that I don't think you can determine a time lag between T and CO2, even if they come from the same ice core. Not even when both are radiometrically dated (because even that cannot compensate for diffusion).
So I think it's ok if the CO2 measurements from the ice cores are used on long term modeling, where modeling results have a resolution of 1,000 years or even more.
If you want to analyze more rapid changes, then you're better off with other sources of data.
And you can use both to verify the results from models...
What do you mean... that CO2 graph shows variations of 200 ppm to 280 ppm on a scale of about 100,000 years and only tiny variations of about 20 ppm on smaller scales of 5,000 years. Doesn't that tell you anything? The shape of this graph is pretty convincing to me in terms of extensive smoothing in time. It really only shows very long term variations, you cannot tell anything from it on a short scale.
I wonder if they didn't just plot actual measurements for the last 100 years ... how could they measure from CO2 in the ice ... those bubbles haven't even formed yet, they only form in the solid ice at depths of over 50 m.
Whatever it was, it was a small effect, comparable to what we experience nowadays.
We also know that the oceans do not expel CO2 as the surface temperature warms, that they lag by a very long time.
The solubility of CO2 changes slightly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate#With_varying_CO2_pressure
The solubility of calciumcarbonate is a different story... it depends on temperature but also on acidity (and hence on partial CO2 pressure). I'm not sure what that means... does it mean that more CO2 can enter the ocean if calciumcarbonate is driven out? Or less? Or does it not matter, it's all a form of carbon after all.
We know this because we can't account for all the CO2 we've added to the air, more of it than we expected is just gone because of the oceans. Despite warming, they are still absorbing more than they had as it increases.
That's just a matter of equilibrium - if you increase the concentration in the air, then the concentration in the water has to rise proportionally. The water will keep absorbing CO2 until the concentration in the water is in equilibrium with the concentration in the air. After that, it won't absorb anymore unless it has somewhere to put everything (sedimentation), but that's a process that hasn't changed recently.
If CO2 causes the warming trend, it has to come from somewhere. Those spikes were not products of high volcanic activity, nor were they from century plus long warming trends that warmed the oceans enough to release CO2.
Which spikes... it's all smoothed out. I think it's really hard to tell from those ice core data... they have such poor CO2 time-resolution, it's like looking through fuzzy glasses and trying to make out details. It's better than nothing, but still... it's not great either. To be honest I don't know what to make of it, you can make all kinds of conclusions based on this ... like the face of Mars Which turned out to be a rock ^^.
I suppose you mean the "sudden" increases in CO2. Those have a time resolution of ... what ... 10,000 years or so? What kind of conclusion can you make about that? Also, we are talking about ice ages here... half the globe was covered in ice. We are in a different situation now, there are few ice caps.
And instead of looking at it in terms of peaks, on can also look at it in terms of troughs.
I'll have to think about this kinda stuff, I don't know what to make of it.
Is an ice age an unstable situation, governed by activity of the sun or the length of summer/winters on the northern hemisphere? If that's the case, T might cause a change in CO2. After all, ice caps will upset the carbon cycle.
But we have no ice caps now... there's no major disruption to the carbon cycle other than "us". There's no natural process that we know of that could be driving a 100 ppm change over the last 150 years.
Do you know of one?