The positive feedback factor of CO2

[Bystander]

(snip)I was more thinking about the argument - if I understood it correctly - that the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is "for 60% due to fossil fuel burning", and that the proof that it is *this* CO2 is the isotopic ratio which has a "fossil signature". Now, maybe this is just a summary of a much more complex argument - that's actually my question.

But if the argument stops there, then this is only at most *suggestive*, and no *proof*: you cannot logically derive the necessity of the CO2 rise by just observing this isotopic marking.(snip)

"n" reservoirs with "n" isotope signatures exchanging carbon via n² mechanisms that partition isotopes by kinetic and/or thermodynamic effects at n² rates isn't a system of equations that lends itself to "trivial" solution; got some of the isotope ratios, very little rate data, and one reservoir mass (atmosphere). Hence, the question, "Wanta try cataloguing the reservoir-mass-flux data situation?"

 

[Andre]

Back to the OP subject

So a complaint was filed against the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" about misinformation. Also this CO2 lagging was addressed here:

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p44.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p45.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p46.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p47.htm

It may be noted that the complaint does still not address the problems with positive feedback dynamics are indicated here in the OP.