The positive feedback factor of CO2

vanesch

Granted.

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.

Now, if it is part of a more complicated model, then the argument depends on the reliability of the model.

In other words, there is no direct link between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the isotopic ratios and an eventual causality of the CO2 from fossil burning onto the rising of the CO2 level. But the way things are formulated often, is that this relation is evident, and that finding a correlation between the isotopic markings and the CO2 level indicates a causal link.

Or otherwise, I didn't understand the argument.

Of course, that's no proof either that this is NOT the case. It is even such, that without isotopic marking, the CO2 level rise could even be due to fossil fuel burning, if the cycle is fast enough. This indicates even more the looseness of the connection between isotopic ratios and the causality of the fossil fuel burning in the rise of the CO2 level.

See, for instance, this is pure speculation on my side of course, but it might be that the reason for the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are due mainly to deforestation - I'm not going to develop that here, as I said, it is just a guess on my part. Deforestation might change the parameters of the carbon cycle, and as such, make the atmosphere settle to another steady-state value, with or without burning of fossil fuels. The observational results would be quite similar if the numbers come out right. Again, I'm just making this up here, I'm not advancing it as a "theory", but just to indicate that *suggestive* evidence (the isotope ratio) is not air-tight proof. Then again, I might misunderstand the whole argument, but that's what I make of it.

Bystander

"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...plaint/p44.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net...plaint/p45.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net...plaint/p46.htm
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net...plaint/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.