>No, it doesn't, it just indicates different timescales for CO2 emissions vs. uptake.
It's not clear to me what the distinction is you're trying to make here? If the time scale for emissions vs. uptake is different such that emissions are exceeding uptake capacity due to the different timescales, isn't the previous comment correct?
If the uptake timescale is longer, uptake will catch up to emissions over time (I realize I didn't make that sufficiently clear in my previous post), so CO2 growth does not indicate that uptake has reached "maximum", which is what the post I responded to was claiming.
Then I don't understand where you're coming from?
I never said that, and I don't think it's true. The timescale I was referring to is the timescale for uptake capacity to respond to a change in CO2 levels. For example, trees grow and reproduce more slowly than CO2 levels have been changing, so the increase in uptake from tree growth and reproduction takes some time to respond to an increase in CO2. But that doesn't mean it never responds. It does; uptake capacity does increase.
This indicates to me I probably need to go away and do some research.
Thanks for bringing this assumption to my attention.
Also increased evaporation > increased latent heat transport to upper atmosphere where it can more easily escape to space. According to the numbers in Kiehl & Trenberth's global energy budget, total latent heat transport is about 80 W/m^2, which means a 5 percent increase in it would entirely cancel out the increased radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. This is a negative feedback that I don't see discussed much at all.
> the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're overwhelming these
No, it doesn't, it just indicates different timescales for CO2 emissions vs. uptake.