Ocean carbon sink & Henry's law

David Archer at RealClimate.org is promoting a new kind of climate catastrophe. The ocean is already getting "fed up" with absorbing man-made carbon dioxide, he says. The ocean will get so upset that it may start to emit CO2 instead, we learn. A usual discussion about positive feedbacks and tipping points follows.
....

"So we encounter an effect that can transform changes of temperature into changes of CO2 concentrations. But how much does it actually change the concentrations? During the glaciation cycles in the last half a million years, the CO2 concentration was changing from 180 to 280 ppm while the closely correlated temperature was changing between a minimum and a maximum that was about 8 Celsius degrees warmer. The correlation used to be nearly perfect but you see that the increase by 8 Celsius degrees leads to the increase of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm.

Incidentally, that allows you to see another trivial argument why the correlation can't be evidence of the greenhouse effect. If the CO2 were the cause, if the temperature were its consequence, and if the greenhouse effect were able to transform a 100 ppm increase of CO2 into 8 degrees of warming as suggested by Al Gore, something like that would have happened since 1850, too: since 1850, we have increased CO2 by additional 100 ppm. But the temperatures clearly didn't increase by 8 Celsius degrees since 1850. That's why we see that the prediction for the recent temperature change by the hypothesis that CO2 was a major climate driver during the glaciation periods is brutally falsified. The observed warming is 13 times smaller than the prediction."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/ocean-carbon-sink-henrys-law.html

Anyhow, if global temperature were to increase by 8 C, we could expect the ocean could at best, and not including the 2000 year delay required in warming the entire ocean, could because a warming ocean emit CO2 so increase by 100 ppm in the atmosphere. No one thinks global temperature will rise anywhere near 8 C in next 100 or 200 years.

Now, it should noted that during the last 100 year of global warming, the ocean has been absorbing CO2- it's commonly claimed that 1/2 of human emission is absorbed by the ocean. No one thinks the oceans have during this time significantly cooled, but if they had warmed significantly they would not absorb CO2 via this discussed mechanism. Therefore if you assume ocean temperature has remained basically unchanged or warmed any amount, then that means for to the oceans to absorb CO2 some other mechanism *must* have been involved in order for ocean to absorb this CO2.
There is another way for the ocean to absorb CO2. First the ocean has about 3/4 of the Earth photosynthesis, and photosynthesis of course requires CO2- it splits the CO2 into carbon which used for cell structure and emits O2. Then of course animals eat the plant and use carbon by burning to create energy [creating CO2]. How much CO2 is sequestered by this could be fairly fuzzy. But the more CO2 available for the plant use will lead to more plant growth, and thereby providing more food that could eaten by the animals. Which leads to a process which is known to sequester significant amount of CO2, that is animal forming shells and these falling to ocean floor as sediment.

Anyways read the article linked above- and the comments if you like.

I also want bring your attention another aspect regarding the idea "runaway" effects:

"Lean's solar irradiance reconstruction suggests Sol has been contributing about an extra 3 Wm-2 since the Maunder quiet time. The IPCC's WG1 AR4 (Ch 2, p136) puts human contribution at about 1.6 Wm-2 (about the same as increment in atmospheric CO2 when +ve and -ve forcings are taken into account). So, we have positive forcings roughly estimated at 3 + 1.5 = 4.5 Wm-2 and warming estimated at 0.65 ± 0.2 K, two-thirds solar and one-third anthropogenic.

Whichever way you look at the IPCC's numbers we don't have a problem as advertised. Why not? Because a doubling of atmospheric CO2 can deliver (at most) 3.7 Wm-2 and we have already experienced more than that without seeing anything like the absurd model-generated 5 or 6 kelvins warming. What we have seen is well under one-third of one kelvin warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and that's almost half the warming possible from doubling pre-Industrial Revolution levels."
http://www.junkscience.com/

Junkscience also where above article is linked.
And junkscience is one blogs up for blog of the year for science, perhaps you can find the time to vote for it- that or perhaps ClimateAudit which is also good