Re: CO2 lasts decades?
"Typically, process parameters that follow driving inputs this closely (there appears to be about a three month lag), will respond just as quickly to a change in the long term inputs."
I don't know anything about "simple control systems theory" but your argument is just unsound from the point of view of logic. I can think of any number of examples where your argument would fail.
For example a bath of water in which water is being added so that it's water level slowly increases over time. Add waves that make the water level fluctuate at any given point. Now you would say that those rapid fluctuations in water level mean that if we stopped adding water to the bath the water level would rapidly fall! But in fact the rapid fluctuations in water level clearly tell us nothing about how fast the water level would fall if the water stops being added.
I think the mistake you've made is you've coined an argument that assumes the cause of the short term cycle and the longterm increase are the same.
And in the case of CO2 the cause of the longterm increase is not the same as the cause of the seasonal cycle. The draw down in seasonal CO2 is caused by plants uptaking more CO2. The longterm increase is caused by humans injecting CO2 into the system. If humans stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere it does not imply that plants will suddenly go into some hyper mode where they draw it all down in months (and where's it going to go?)
"Simple control systems theory. The model makers need to go back to the drawing board to find where that 'decades' aphorism came from."
Sure and the experts are utterly clueless. Fortunately some guy on a forum on the internet knows better. How arrogant.