Actualy what didnt happen during WWII was fishing!
During the ten year period of Global bomb throwing and City tourching......While man made C02 release was at an all time high during the end of the war........Co2 levels were not!
The Oceans, having not been fished much by commercial fishing , regained some strenth .
Fish stocks rebounded .(locking up Co2 in fish stocks like an new growth forrest)
References have been made to the significant increases in fish and seal stocks in the North Sea and elsewhere in the North Atlantic by the end of the war. The biological activity that led to the building of those larger fish stocks is the same activity that briefly drew down more CO2 from the atmosphere, and caused the “glitch†in the graph.
Could it be that fishing has been the root of Co2 increases all the while?
A few short centuries ago we started with this sort of fish stock assessment:
“It is probably impossible for anyone now alive to comprehend the magnitude of fish life in the waters of the New World when the European invasion began. It may have been almost equally difficult for the early voyagers. According to the record they have left for us, they seem to have been overwhelmed by the glut of fishes.
In 1497, John Cabot set the tone by describing the Grand Banks as so ‘swarming with fish [that they] could be taken not only with a net but in baskets let down [and weighted] with a stone.’ On the lower St. Lawrence in 1535 Jacques Cartier reported that ‘This river...is the richest in every kind of fish that anyone remembers ever having seen or heard of; for from its mouth to its head you will find in their season the majority of the varieties of salt- and fresh-water fish...great numbers of mackerel, mullet, sea bass, tunnies, large eels...quantities of lampreys and salmon...[in the uper River] are many pike, trout, carp, bream and other fresh-water fish.’†(Mowat, 1984)
So, people arriving on the eastern coast of North America 500 years ago were “overwhelmed by the glut of fishes.†And now...after a few centuries of plying our fishing industries, we are left with this sort of assessment (recent comments from a respected marine biologist on the changes that he has witmessed in the span of his career):
“Essentially, if we compare the amount of fish, the biomass of fish before the introduction of industrial fishing in various parts of the world, what is left, the relationship is about 1 to 10 roughly; that is you go into the Gulf of Thailand, you catch if you’re 20 kilograms per hour with a standard trawl. Then in the 60s you would catch 200, 300 kilogram per hour with a standard trawl so you have a fact of 10. And this fact of 10, that’s what you find in a lot of fisheries...For things like seabirds and sea turtles and large marine mammals, we probably have much less than 10%, perhaps 1%, perhaps even less. Turtles, it’s a disaster. Some species of marine mammals are extinct.†(Daniel Pauly, 1998)
Can removing 90% of the biomass from something a big as 3/5ths of the surface of the planet,,,,, not have an effect?
"The ocean contains more than 98% of the global resevoir of mobile carbon...Thus changes in the physical and/or biological setup of the ocean were probably the main causes for observed glacial-interglacial changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere...It is changes in total nutrients in the ocean (nutrient inventories) or changes in the efficiency with which marine production uses available nutrients (Redfield ratios, new production at high latitudes) that have the largest relative effect on atmospheric CO2 levels via the action of the marine biosphere.†and, regarding his ocean modelling work, “the assumption being that the deep interior is as yet relatively unaffected by the anthropogenic perturbations.â€Â(Shaffer, 1993)
And with big time fishing starting fifty to one hundred years prior to the industrial revolution..........It makes sense that was also when the Co2 levels began to upturn.
Fishing was well established and advanced before 1800. Many populations of marine creatures had been severely depleted, a few to extinction, before that date. Just to name a few, there were the great auk, the walrus, Steller's sea cow, the Atlantic gray whale and the other great whales. The slaughter of sea life was well advanced, and even then, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, fishermen were voicing concerns about the declining numbers of fish in the sea.
Keep in mind that this IS a water planet.
Poedag you get an A+ in the artistic area for those pretty graphs.
?
You're only as old as you feel... if you're a kid at heart then I guess I could be wrong. 
