That’s an assertion, not an argument. You have zero evidence that there is an upper limit on what our natural sources can absorb.
Put another way, perhaps you understand the electrical concept of “ground”. Fun fact, whether or not you are grounding a positive charge, or a negative charge, the earth will handle both. Its ability to absorb, or emit electrons is effectively limitless. There’s no reason to assume atmospheric CO2 is any different, especially given the massive disparity between the mass of the atmosphere, and the mass of the planet and the hydrosphere.
“Plus with the large amount of deforestation going on”
The world is greening, thanks to CO2. If anything, emitting CO2 is helping fight deforestation.
I presume that one of those natural processes you refer to is the acidification of the oceans.
Let’s be clear here — the oceans are basic, and even if we took every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, and put it in the ocean, it would still be basic. Oceans are naturally becoming more neutral, not acidic, and the rate of this change is orders of magnitude less than both regional and temporal variations in pH.
Besides 50% of CO2 taken in by photosynthesis returns to atmosphere through plant respiration.
That’s completely irrelevant. The net effect of photosynthesis is the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
What your doing is gambling with how much carbon the sinks can take.
I’m not gambling at all, I’m simply stating the observed facts, and asking for you to justify your assertions by following the scientific method and providing a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. If you’re not going to follow the scientific method, then listening to your policy prescriptions is just as reasonable as listening to a priest talking about believing in God.
You might want to look up “Pascal’s Wager”, where belief in God is justified by the terrible danger of eternal damnation.
If you’re right then the carbon sinks will take more carbon
Correct. And if I’m right, expensive CO2 emissions reductions will kill billions of people by destroying the economy, and save *nothing*.
If you could propose things that didn’t make energy more expensive, that didn’t require massive subsidies, then you’ve got my ear — but the idea that a healthy, natural petroleum based economy is going to bring about the apocalypse isn’t very convincing if you can’t do basic science.