Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for about 5% or so of the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Natural processes release and absorb many times that per year.
This is one of the dumbest 'arguments' of the anthropocentric truthers and bible throwers.
The natural process is a carbon
circulation. Combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of the ground and transfers it into the ocean and the atmosphere.
It is not a circulation but a pump which over time slowly puts more and more carbon into the ground from out of the air. This is why the long term carbon graphs show carbon as constantly decreasing at a steady rate over millions of years.
No, not constantly decreasing. Cyclically decreasing. 150 Million years ago the concentration has been much higher than 300 Million years ago.
Anthropogenic experiments in changing the composition of the atmosphere in record time are anyway an idiocy. Man made, shock-like changes in the atmosphere determine shock-like reactions of flora and fauna.
200M years of continuously decreasing levels. We have barely reversed a mere fraction of that. Yes it is a change, but that does not mean it is a bad change.
Abruptly engineering an environment with conditions of the pre-mammalian age could indeed be a good change.
The planet would at least be spared from anthropocentric
poison drinkers and hyper-collectivists (bible throwers, Keynesians, Austrians, tvbcofs, anonymints and other fascist collectivists) and the command of their idols: Dominum terrae.
The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all is called "life."https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra#Ch._11_:_The_New_Idol