jimw1960 said:
furcifer said:
It's certainly possible that the observed increase in CO2 is due to natural variation. It's just highly improbable. You have to ignore the rate of increase and rely on coincidence.
I agree with you on a lot of things, but gotta correct you here. No, it is not possible that increased CO2 since the 1800s are due to natural variation. Not even remotely possible. The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. We also have very good estimates of the total CO2 generated each year from fossil fuel burning. A simple mass balance is enough to proove that most of this increase is due to fossil fuels; deforestation and cement production also contribute. Also the accompanying decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere also balances with the amount of oxygen that would be required to burn all that fossil fuel. Only a tiny fraction of the observed increase--less than 1%--could be explained by natural sources.
Your collection of assumptions, estimates, and oversights, is simply mind boggleing !
If you actually understood half as much as you claim to , you would not make such statements as .
“The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. ”...
“Only a tiny fraction of the observed increase--less than 1%--could be explained by natural sources.”
So, what exactly is that isotopic signature (data), and how does it show that 99% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic ? .....Even the IPCC have only declared 40% is anthropogenic !
And incase you didnt bother reading previous posts, mr furcifer kindly posted a series of graphs..backed up by ice core data, that clearly showed 8% of the CO2 increase occurred before any anthropogenic input .?
Why do you assume all the change of Oxygen levels is due to Fossil fuel burning ? ..That is just too simplistic in a global system
For example,.. What about the reduction of oxygen generation due to that deforestation you mentioned ?.. never mind our lack of accurate data on the major sources/sinks of the oxygen cycle ?...do you really think we know that within the error range that would cover the change in atmospheric CO2 ??
Obviously , more CO2 means more O2 consumed.....BUT that does not automatically mean it is the only possible explanation for reduced O2 in the atmosphere
https://www.livescience.com/56219-earth-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-declining.html
So, pony up your isotopic proof of anthropogenic CO2 being 99% of the 120+pp increase in CO2.. ..
..... Or do as your cult buddies keep doing and change the topic to avoid answering .