Over the span of ten years, which would mean absolutely nothing.
Hmmm, well let me use some of your logic. Rising temperature causes CO2 concentrations to increase, the temperature has risen over the past 10 years, therefore, the rise in CO2 concentrations is entirely natural.

But back to the point, until you know all the natural causes for the fluctuation of CO2 concentrations, and have ruled them out as possible causes for the current rise in CO2 concentrations, you can't definitively claim the increase in CO2 concentrations is anthropogenic, nor can you claim that nature would take any particular course were man not around.
If you suspend reason and logic.
What? I thought the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere was entirely a product of human emissions. Which is it? Do CO2 concentrations increase because of temperature, or because of human emissions.

Your statement basically resolves to this: The atmosphere will absorb more CO2 than it emits if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb, therefore, the atmosphere will always have a contant level of CO2 concentrations. Which is not true.
According to what? What "things" need to be equal? Are you arguing the atmosphere is an ordered system?
Really? Why? What happened to all the other forcings that alter CO2 concentrations? Given that CO2 concentrations fluctuate naturally, why do you believe they simply stop when humans are around? Do they just not like to be watched? What about temperature? Since temperature has increased over the past 150 years (assuming we accept that premise), shouldn't CO2 concentrations have increased commensurately?
Then they would reach their pre-industrial levels and stop? Because the planet likes the 280ppm number?
You first need to understand the mechanism. Do we?
Really? Well, that makes sense. Temperature started increasing naturally, therefore CO2 concentrations rose naturally. Looks like my erroneous conclusion is getting stronger every minute. Yours, however, is suffering. Unless you're arguing that Man somehow increased the temperature of this planet?
Then there could be natural reasons why CO2 concentrations are increasing. Until we got to zero.
Which logically means: either the absorption rate decreased, or the emission rate increased. You can't state specifically which.
Correct, in so far as "extra" means "non-natural".
Your conclusion still does not follow. Assuming your numbers for how much CO2 Man is emitting and how much CO2 is added to the environment every year are correct, the most you could argue is that Man is a cause of rising CO2 concentrations.

Furthermore, you would not be able to argue CO2 concentrations would decrease if Man stopped emitting CO2 because climate is not a linear, ordered system. You don't know what would happen, just as you don't know what's happening now. You can come up with very plausible theories, none of which will have the definite statements you keep wanting to make, but they will still be just theories.
When did it decide to do that? Did it decide after temperatures started rising? If so, how come CO2 levels have reached such extreme levels in the past and stayed there long after temperature began to decline?
Really? What do you have, some sort of little toll booth the CO2 molecules have to go through so you can count them? How do you know how much CO2 "nature" put into the system and how much it took out?
Who knows? Climate is a non-linear, chaotic system that we don't know near enough about in order to make claims like, "If A, then B."
Lest anyone be tricked into thinking these links show something they don't, the first is a link to measured CO2 concentrations from one observatory. (One observatory to conclude that CO2 concentrations are rising globally. I'll let the more intelligent among us decide if that seems right.) If you graph this data you'll see a slight uptrend from about 320ppm in 1958, to about 380 in 2004. An increase of about 19%. Which, considering that increasing temperatures cause CO2 concentrations to rise, is wholly consistent with my erroneous conclusion that temperatures are currently causing CO2 concentrations to rise.

But let's look at onon's theory. Since the only numbers he likes to repeat are the 15 extra tons of CO2 Man is pumping into the air, 15 tons over 46 years (1958-2004) comes out to be 690 tons of CO2. 690 tons of CO2 caused an increase of 19% in CO2 concentrations. Do I have that right, onon? This relatively paltry amount (when compared to 750-830 gigatons already in the atmosphere) would cause an increase of 19%?

The second link takes you to a table of estimates for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Estimates that, as even the short blurb up top tells us, aren't even close to actual. Where did they get these estimates? How did they arrive at those numbers?

What neither of these links tell us are: 1) how much CO2 is being emitted naturally, or 2) how much CO2 is being absorbed naturally. Both of which we would need to know in order to make any assumptions about whether the net effect of nature is to absorb CO2.
I have no idea. Unlike you, I understand that climate has many, many, many, many dependent variables. And I also understand that if I change one of these variables today, I won't necessarily get the same results if I changed that variable tomorrow. You keep imagining that climate has only a few variables and you can make definitive predictions based upon changing some of those variables. That's simply not true. Climate is a non-linear, chaotic, vastly interconnected system that we don't know nearly enough about to claim changing A will result in B.
I have no interest in making you believe otherwise. However, your logic is flawed.