What a convoluted argument to justify a predetermined position. This 'theory' would seem to suggest a lot of CO2 should have been absorbed by the strong La Nina. Yet a week or two ago we had record temperatures. The theory needs more tinkering. Perhaps it could explain where the missing socks go to.

Taswegian; the 2nd last paragraph sums up what is not a "convoluted" argument. Even more simply put: the AF is ALL humans can be contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 but the atmospheric CO2 is increasing MORE than the AF; therefore nature MUST be contributing to the increase.

Perhaps it's convoluted because it doesn't suit your belief in AGW?

Anthony,
Lung cancer appears to cause more death than men smoking

Before commenting, I would like to you to please clear up for me what appears to be two different concepts of what the airborne fraction (AF) is.

Is it the percentage of anthropogenic emissions that stay in the atmosphere? (i.e 40% of human emissions stay in the atmosphere)

OR
Is it the percentage of the CO2 increase that is anthropogenic in origin?
(i.e. 40% of the increase is anthropogenic in origin)

It appears to me that Knorr is arguing the first, but the second last 'summary' paragraph appears to argue the second, but that also seems to be contradicted by the final figure.

Could you please clear this up for us?

Taswegian
Its not a convoluted argument at all, but they are covering their bases. In essence what they are saying is that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to bear no correlation with increases in emissions. The first is plugging away (at 2 ppm per year, about) while the other is increasing. At the least there is clearly a mismatch. So what's happening? I don't think recent summer temperatures are all that relevant to the argument. The problem is that forecast increases in temperatures (much higher than present) require big increases in CO2 in the atmosphere which doesn't seem to be happening.

Bugsy
Not quite sure what they mean by AF in that last part but the point they are making is as per my response to Taswegian. The fraction of industrial CO2 staying in the atmosphere seems to be much less than required by the theory.. we should be seeing much higher concentrations of CO2 by now.. so what's happening? the point's been made a few times over the year but largely ignored by the global warming industry. There's been no response, so there's been no pat answer. The point's just been ignored.

Interesting - potentially. Is there anything to suggest this information and analysis has any scientific credibility?

I followed several links in the article (not all of them, by any means), but the following is typical of what I found.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

an article by a David Middleton, who is described as follows (I couldn't find anything about his scientific qualifications)

About David Middleton
I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil and gas industry for almost 30 years. My favorite hobby is debunking the junk science of the radical environmentalists...Particularly the junk science of anthropogenic global warming.

Hardly a source of choice for trustworthy scientific information.

Next I followed a link to http://joannenova.com.au/
There is a lot of information about this lady at
http://joannenova.com.au/about/

Conspicuous by its absence was anything about her scientific knowledge about climate change.

For the benefit of those like me who can't spend all day hunting for any scientific research from reputable sources (eg published research) backing this up, could you indicate where it is (if any)? (Again, I acknowledge that I haven't followed up all the links in the article - there are too many - I just want ones to reliable scientific research).

Jeremy, your criticism of Middleton and nova is disingenuous; Middleton's article has a bibliography of 23 peer reviewed papers or official data sources; are you dismissing them or just Middleton's view based on those sources; if the latter then read Middleton's piece because several of the papers are the basis of his view.

Jo Nova is a scientist full-stop. Just because you don't like her position of AGW doesn't change that fact. And again Jo is very particular about basing her view on creditable scientific papers; look again at the link.

Bugsy; there is no contradiction; the AF is defined in the paper; the last graph compares the amount of CO2 available in the atmosphere from human sources [the AF] with the increase in atmospheric CO2; the result of the comparison is plain; humans cannot be causing all the increase in atmospheric CO2. If that makes AGW look any more ridiculous then it already does then so be it.

Hopefully now that he has proven the world’s entire climate scientist wrong he could move on to curing cancer. Perhaps he can convince us all that cancer doesn't kill people it's just an indication someone is going to die.
I sure Curmudgeon and cohenite will throw their support behind it what would those nasty scientist know.

Oh dear it's just another hack job by not climate scientist.

The only issue for me here is whether (1) to swot up on the theory that plant stomata provide the best historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and then, like Cox and Cormack, arrive at a ‘personal opinion’ on the topic, or (2) to apply Occam’s Razor and go for the simplest explanation, that the absolutely certain increases in manmade emissions are causing the concentration in the atmosphere to go up, or (3) to do what most rational folk would, which is to expect that real climate scientists will already have thought about this stuff and are telling us their understanding via the usual official, considered and peer-reviewed channels.

Actually, on reflection, number 3 is a bit unreasonable, given the thousands of weird views about climate that sit on servers spread over the globe. There’s a good chance that real climate scientists can’t be bothered. I suppose that’s a problem, since lack of disagreement might be interpreted as acquiescence.

But honestly, a bit of humility from those who busily develop their own personal notions of how climate works would be in order

I think this opinion piece highlights the confusion felt in the skeptics camp.

The way AF is described in the paper is very different to the way it is discussed in the final paragraphs of opinion piece.

The last graph shows an increase in emissions that far exceeds the actual increase in atmospheric concentration, which is what I believe the fact that Mark 'curmudgeon' was referring to, i.e the emissions seem to be disappearing somewhere into a carbon sink. Yet, this is not what you argue, you seem to believe that the increase in atmospheric concentrations cannot be explained by the increwase in emissions (somehow?), even though the increase in emissions greatly exceeds the actual increase in concentration.

Mark 'curmudgeon' Lawson is arguing that the CO2 sinks are taking up more CO2 as we are emitting it, whereas Anthony 'cohenite' Cox, appears to arguing that cannot be possibly happening and anthropogenic emissions cannot explain the increase and that nature must actually be belching CO2 out.

Which is it? Please discuss amongst yourselves and present us with a clear answer to this confusion.

jeremy,

You say; “Is there anything to suggest this information and analysis has any scientific credibility?” and “(I acknowledge that I haven't followed up all the links in the article - there are too many - I just want ones to reliable scientific research)”.

You rightly raise the issues of scientific credibility and ask for links to “only reliable research”.

Your problem is the same as mine. I’m not a scientist and cannot determine which have scientific credibility however, If I were to ask for only those links that offer reliable scientific research I am entirely dependent upon someone else’s opinion as to what they see as reliable. If you are happy to accept an opinion, go for it. Otherwise develop your own opinion based upon other than the science.

There is a better way for us non-scientists.

If the politicians in the 1990’s were presented with the case that exists today for CAGW, would they have still legislated for action? You might also ask yourself what existed in support of CAGW prior to Climategate and what exists today. I can point you to what is now missing; you can work out the rest.

UN IPCC assessment AR 5 – alarmism now inconclusive
UK Met Office declaring no warming- alarmism now inconclusive
Alarmist Predictions - failed to eventuate
A replacement for Kyoto – there isn’t one
Funding through Green Trading Markets - Collapsed
Renewable Industry – Collapsed
Affiliated Renewable Industry dependents, financiers, employees and suppliers – Gone
Green Jobs - Gone
Scientific consensus – a fraud
Government rebates – Gone or termination dates set
Public Broadcaster Credibility on AGW - BBC 28 Gate (Google it) – Credibility Gone
Governmental capacity to fund renewable capital investments – declining rapidly under austerity and debt.
Public interest or support for green initiatives – declining at 10 percent p.a.
Threat from growing competitive industrial growth based upon cheap energy – Growing exponentially.
Home grown opposition to commercial opportunism in renewables – Growing

Without these CAGW science cannot have credibility because it couldn’t convince any of its own, therefore it can’t convince me.

NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis Tuesday that compares temperatures around the globe in 2012 to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.

Bugsy, it is you who are confused; either that or you are trying to generate confusion.

Both the Knorr graph and the fianl graph are plain; the difference between them is that in the latter graph the AF is shown as 40% of total human emissions which was Knorr's calculated amount, not the 46%, which was the estimate in his graph.

Knorr's graph shows the human emissions with the top, thick, unbroken line. The last graph shows the human emissions as the top blue dotted line.

Knorr's graph shows the AF as 46% with the thick dashed line. The bottom graph shows AF at 40%, over a shorter period, as the bottom yellow dotted line.

Both Knorr and the bottom graph show atmospheric increase in CO2 from 1959 in the jagged unbroken black line.

Both Knorr and the bottom graph plainly show that the amount of human CO2 left in the atmosphere as measured by the AF, is insuffiecient to explain the increase in atmospheric CO2.

If that is confusing to you Bugsy then that is your problem because it is pretty clear to me.

It is far from clear cohenite.

The increase in total human CO2 emissions greatly exceeds that required to explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, that much is patently clear.

What you are seem to be saying is that 40% of human emissions is not enough to explain the increase in concentration. Fair enough, you disagree with Knorr then, because that paper calculated that only 40% (or perhaps 46%) of human emissions is enough to explain the increase and that has remained constant over time, i.e. does not appear to be accelerating.

But somehow you are saying that black is white and natural sources must be invoked to explain the increase?

Weird...

"Fair enough, you disagree with Knorr then, because that paper calculated that only 40% (or perhaps 46%) of human emissions is enough to explain the increase and that has remained constant over time"

Knorr doesn't say that; the AF is the % of human emitted CO2 which stays in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by the sinks. Knorr made no connection between the AF he found and the increase in atmospheric CO2 other than comparing them in his graph; and even when you look at Knorr's estimate of a 46% AF from his graph it is plain that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is often ABOVE the AF, or the human CO2 which remains in the atmosphere.

When the correct 40% AF is plotted against the increase in atmospheric CO2, as shown in the bottom graph, it is even more plain that human CO2 cannot, as you say, "explain the increase and that has remained constant over time".

The AF only remains a constant of the increase in human CO2 emissions which are increasing, so in real terms, the AF is getting bigger; but the rate of increase of the AF is less than the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2; so a source of CO2 other than human emissions must be supplying that increase beyond what the AF can do.

The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.

Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.

Years ago, it passed the 350ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.

"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."

"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders – with a few honourable exceptions – are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former vice president Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts per million.

cohenite,

I didn't read Middleton's article. There are more articles available than I could read in the rest of my life, written by scientists who at least have the sense not to advertise themselves as being people whose interest in the science is only to point to a particular conclusion.

I certainly don't have time to read his 23 references. One, yes, 23, no. Suggestions welcome.

Re Jo Nova, I accept that she is a "graduate in molecular biology". She doesn't regard it as particularly significant in the self-promotion on her website (I think she's right - it's about as relevant as my own scientific qualifications, ie, not very). What she regards as most significant is the nice things Andrew Bolt says about her. I find that weird.

All this doesn't say that these people are wrong. But there's plenty of material to read by people who at least look like potential sources of reliable scientific information.

Actually, you are right, Knorr does not calculate the AF to be 40%, that came form somewhere else, but a bit higher than that.

You state in your opinion piece, "The constant AF found by Knorr was about 40%.", however I cannot find that in his results or conclusions, could you please point it out for me?

One of the conclusions of the paper was that emissions from land use changes was probably overestimated. Otherwise the possibility exists thats,"a larger proportion of emissions is taken up by the ocean than what has been previously assumed", which I think is what Mark was talking about. However you seem to be concluding the polar opposite of that: the oceans must be belching it out.

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere appears the indication that anthropogenic emissions cannot account for the increase in concentrations, they very clearly can. Knorr just concludes that the percentage of the emissions remaining in the atmosphere has not been increasing.

Mark reckons that it must accelerate for the 'theory' (whichever one he is referring to?) to work. I guess that is for another discussion at another time.

Any that says it's his hobby for debunking GW is not a fair commentator for a start.

Ice core samples seem to point to the proposition that increased Co2 numbers follow warming, rather than the other way round. Understandable, given warmer water holds less Co2 than cold.
There are things we could do to sequester enough of our carbon emission to restore the natural equilibrium, that used to maintain a healthy goldilocks balance. That was before we started cutting down a football field a day of rainforest.
And given the oceans are the lungs of the planet, any significant acidification or warming is of concern!
What can we do?
Well, we could get serious about algae farming.
Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in carbon emission, and under optimised conditions, can literally double that bodyweight and absorption capacity every 24 hours.
Some algae are up to 60% oil; and extracting it is as simple as sun drying filtered algae and then crushing the dry material.
The oil extracted requires no further energy consuming, carbon creating, refining, and can be grown expressly for the diesel or jet fuel market.
The ex-crush material would support (an) erstwhile ethanol production facilit(y)(ies).
It requires no arable land and can even be grown out in sea water or effluent.
Grown in closed cycle systems, it can scrub all the Co2 emission, from smoke stack exhausts, which is great for coal-fired power! [Ours, the Chinese and the Indians!] All while producing a healthy additional sustainable profit, from the by products!
Closed cycle algae farming only uses just 2-3% of the water, of traditional irrigation!
Algae farming could save both the Murray/Darling and all who depend on it for their income!
Why aren't we already doing it?
Interesting question, which ought to be addressed at all politicians, and or, their political masters!
Rhrosty.

Bugsy

Actually my apologies.. the first explanation was given in haste and is a sort-off offshoot of what the authors are saying. I won't go further into their concept, but note below..

but jeremy, Kenny,Tombee, 579..

Please note that it has long been settled and established that the flow of industrial CO2 into the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of the natural flows - 2 per cent in fact. So by itself those dditional flows shouldn't even begin to explain the increases in CO2 in the atmospher seen in the past decade. No-one is arguing that point.

But the industrial increases are linked with that apparently big increase so the theory is set up to take that into account. It specifies that half the man-made CO2 is absorbed and the rest hangs around for decades, or some such. The authors brush that aside, and that part is really controversial. I personally agree with them, but the existing theory has too much accreted mass to brush to one side without giving good reason. They should have spent more time on that point as its crucial.

It is fair to point out that there is no correlation in the acceleration in emission increases and CO2 increases. However, the only way the existing theory will be shaken is if and when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere start going down rather than up.. until then most arguments are pointless. (Think it won't happen, well we shall see.)

There does seem to be soemthing wrong with the ice core readings of CO2 as there should be more variation, and if you ask scientists about this they don't have much of a response.. but again nature has to take the lead or the theory stays the way it is..

Good comment Curmudgeon; I think what you are referring to is the difference between the residency of a CO2 molecule and the ongoing effect on the atmospheric bulk of the increasing ACO2.

It is fairly well accepted that the 1/2 life of a CO2 molecule is about 4 years and you can have fun with the annual flux and reabsortion figures to see that 1/2 life is probably less.

For instance, the annual fluxes are shown by Figure 7.3 of AR4.

This shows that of the annual CO2 flux, ACO2 is 8Gt out of the total of 218.2Gt or 3.67%. US Department of Energy [DOE] figures put this % at 2.91% but for argument's sake it does not matter.

DOE shows that approximately 98.5% of the total flux is reabsorbed in sinks, predominantly natural although cropping would add a miniscule amount.

If one assumes that the same proportion of ACO2 of the total flux into the atmosphere is NOT reabsorbed but adds to the bulk atmospheric concentration the simple formula of how much ACO2 adds to the atmospheric increase would be annually:

3.67/100 X 1.5/100 = 0.000552

That is one ACO2 molecule has a 1 in 1811.594203 of still being in the atmosphere after 1 year.

After 2 years the probability would be 1 in 120772.9469 chance of remaining.

All of which shakes the 1/2 life a bit.

The beauty of looking at Knorr's AF is that it convincingly shows ACO2 cannot be causing all the increase and very likely only a small proportion of that increase.

That should have profound consequences for policy and the science.

Cumm If you are talking about the sea giving up its carbon stores, what came first rising sea temperatures or the sea giving up the carbon.
The planet is more short of trees now than ever before, so you are losing natural attrition.
The more sea temp; the more carbon escape. So quit industrial carbon and nature will fix the rest.
Nature has been compromised with added carbon from industry and cars and
land fills and etc;/.

Actually, if you read Knorrs paper, the 40% AF(or so, Ithink Knorr estimated around 46%, but it does not matter), means that it only takes 40% of the anthropogenic emissions to explain the increase.

But no matter, the fact remains that if cohenite is correct, and that there are increasing natural sources of CO2 now contributing to warming, then...

HOLY F-ING CRAP! THE CARBON SINKS ARE ALREADY FAILING!

If what you say is true, then that is truly an alarming turn of events cohenite, not even the most alarmist scientists thought this could happen so soon!

Until of course, the concentrations start going down as Mark reckons they might (with no evidence or theoretical basis for this whatsoever).

Just out of interest cohenite, how is the AF calculated again?

I just need it explained in plain English, because I'm not a mountain climber.

"Actually, if you read Knorrs paper, the 40% AF(or so, Ithink Knorr estimated around 46%, but it does not matter), means that it only takes 40% of the anthropogenic emissions to explain the increase"

It is 40%; the AF simply means that % of the human emissions of CO2, ACO2, which are left in the atmosphere after reabsorption. It was not Knorr's intention to show whether the AF could supply all the increase in atmospheric CO2 but to show recent studies concluding the AF was increasing were wrong; he did that.

Knorr calculated the AF for reasons explained in the introduction; people should read it; Knorr explains that he extends data back to 1850 to overcome described uncertainties in the data. The method he uses, which Bugsy can't seem to find, is described in the section of the paper titled METHODS.

Basically Knorr generates a time function which is cross checked against all sources of CO2 emissions and sinks and atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

What Bugsy appears to be saying, and what he knows is not the case since he also appears to be the scientist on duty, is that since Knorr's time function is correlated with CO2 data from various sources it must mean the calculated AF can explain that data, including the atmospheric increase.

In fact Bugsy is merely restaing the argument used to justify the claim that ACO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2; which is based on the total ACO2 emissions not 40% of them which is the AF. The reason for this is Knorr has included natural variables, ENSO/ocean and Volcanoes.

Anyway, the AF is 40% of the ACO2 emissions. Knorr's cross-checking with the 1850 data means the post 1959 comparison between Knorr's 46% graph and the final 40% graph in the article is correct and ACO2 cannot provide all the CO2 to explain the atmospheric increase.

Sounds like a lot of rubbish to me. What does the 1850 upper atmosphere carbon readings say.

Monday, November 12, 2012
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Nov. 12, 2012) - A research project with its roots at the University of Waterloo has found that human activity is raising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere.
It is the first hard evidence that such levels are increasing there at a faster rate than can be explained by solar activity or exhaust from rocket launches. The project’s CO2 measurements are reported in the latest issue of Nature GeoScience.
In the earth’s atmosphere, CO2 molecules can accumulate energy through collisions with other atmospheric gases and then emit this energy as infrared radiation (heat). Near the earth's surface, CO2 contributes to a heating of the atmosphere, making it a key factor in climate change. However, in the upper atmosphere, some of the infrared radiation emitted by CO2 makes it to space, thereby inducing a cooling of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract. This effect reduces atmospheric drag on low-orbiting satellites and space junk. Objects will stay up longer before plunging to a fiery end deeper in the atmosphere. While it could aggravate the problem of space clutter, it may also reduce the use of fuel-consuming booster rockets required to keep in position large vehicles, such as the International Space Station.

The recent history of atmospheric carbon dioxide

Charles Keeling began precise monthly measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in 1958. He was the first to do so systematically and so his data have come to be known as the "The Keeling Curve." Learn more about Charles Keeling at http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home/index.php The measurements were made at the Mauna Loa Astronomical Observatory which is at the summit of an inactive volcano in Hawaii. Mauna Loa was chosen because it is far from major sources or sinks of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa are a good proxy for the average of the whole Earth.

Now you're just making stuff up cohenite.

Knorr does not say, anywhere, that ACO2 emissions cannot account for the increase in concentrations. Table 1 shows that he uses the airborne fraction calculated for the year 2000, as calculated by Canadell et al. 2007. What Knorr does is calculate that there does not need to be an increase in AF to show the trend, thus arguing that there is no change in the carbon sinks.

Your argument basically relies on the idea that the carbon sinks aren't working and that natural sources are belching carbon into the atmosphere at a rate higher than the sinks can handle. If this is the case, then God help us all, as that is an alarmists worst nightmare.

But rest easy, all is not lost, because you don't know what you are talking about.
Canadell actually defines how the AF is calculated:
AF = (dC a/dt)/(F Foss + F LUC), where dC a/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (Ca, PgC/y)

That is, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is used to calculate the AF. If the AF is not high enough to explain the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, then something is wrong.

I know what it is, do you?

Knorr disavows Canadell's previous findings of an increase in the AF and this was the purpose of his paper: to check whether that finding of an increase in the rate of the AF was correct; it wasn't.

He also uses a different method of calculating the AF to what Canadell did, as I'm sure you know which would mean you do know what you are talking about but are fibbing. Knorr does show, as one of his options, version 7, a result similar to Canadell but it is not the preferred version.

Anyway, the sinks must be increasing to maintain the constant AF; which is strange since a warming ocean should be a net emitter; but being a net emitter doesn't preclude being an increasing sink.

My argument DOESN'T depend on sinks not working, which apart from being wrong is really an irritating thing to say, assuming you do know what you are talking about. My argument is that a constant AF, as defined as the amount of ACO2 left in the atmosphere after reabsorption by the sinks, which must be increasing, is insufficient to produce the increase in the atmospheric CO2.

I agree that is not Knorr's conclusion but it is supported by his conclusion and well demonstrated by Figure 3.

This is gibberish:

"What Knorr does is calculate that there does not need to be an increase in AF to show the trend, thus arguing that there is no change in the carbon sinks."

Just go back to basics; what is the AF? Is it ALL the ACO2? Is it more or less than the increase in atmospheric CO2

I know that Knorr doesn't conclude that the AF is increasing, but that's not the point.

The AF is the fraction of estimated emissions left over after natural influences are removed.

The growth rate in CO2 concentration is used to calculate the AF. If Knorr uses a different method of calculating it which does not involve the observed increase in atmospheric CO2, then please point out the paragraph in the methods where he does so.

The clue here is in the first line of the results:
"The simplest model of the atmospheric growth rate is
one of a constant AF and yields f = 0.43 [i.e. NOT 40%] when fitted to all data. How well this simple model reproduces the observations at the multi-decadal time scale is shown in Figure 1."

Figure 1 shows the AF= 43% easily explaining the increase in atmospheric concentration, in fact it's the simplest explanation.
There must be something wrong with your estimated emissions data in your final figure (you know, the one plotted by Ian Hill with no source information), as it does not match that used by Knorr. Using the same data is necessary, as Knorr calculated his AF from that dataset, using a different dataset will yield a different AF!

If the oceans are a net emitter of CO2, then the tipping point has already occurred, and we're all screwed (some more than others, obviously).

Knorr says "about 40%... 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero."

That is, 40% is a valid AF figure. Dr Knorr has confirmed that.

Knorr does relate to the increase in atmospheric CO2 because it is one of the factors/data; I said that. Where he differs from Canadell is:

"(Canadell's) analysis accounted only for the error inherent in the linear model, not for uncertainties in either the emissions or the atmospheric growth rate."

Knorr accounted for that in type and extent of data.

Anyway, your fundamental gripe is that because AF is derived from CO2 [as well as other factors!] then the AF can readily explain the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Give me strength!

Your view ignores that AF is less than ALL CO2 emissions; AND as Ian Hill's excellent graph shows, has a trend slope less than the increase in amospheric CO2 increase.

How then can a constant AF of ~40% which is less in every way then the atmospheric increase be responsible for all that atmospheric increase?

Noting that I have not denied that ACO2 is contributing to the atmospheric increase.

Because Ian Hills emissions data is far less than Knorr emissions data. You can see it. Have a look.

40% of 8 is bound to be less than 40% of 10. Der.

You've got a statistical artefact there pal, not very significant.

Bugsy, cohenite, 579

Was locked out of the site by server error, but anyway cohenite, sorry but the theoretical absorbtion half life of CO2 under the present orthodoxy is decades.. (I agree four is probably closer, but its pointless to argue).. so the present sequence is half the industrial CO2 is absorbed and the rest hangs around for decades. If you think that sounds odd there's no point complaining to me, that's the existing theory.

The article talks about a radical departure from that orthodoxy. As I pointed out you can't throw the orthodoxy to one side in this case without giving good explanation or everyone gets confused, which is what seems to have happened. The AF stuff has confused everyone (even me).

Bugsy and Cohenite
No - whether you agree or not with the AFR business, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be accelerating under the orthodoxy but they're not - the increase is linear.. so what's happening? How can you or the scientists explain that? At the least there must by other factors at work so what are they?

579
The business about oceans and CO2 content has been kicked around a lot. Warm oceans, such as we have now, should mean high CO2 content in the atmosphere. The global warmers are arguing that the high CO2 content came first and is driving the heat (or creating a feedback that drives the heat). As I noted before, that theory is well entrenched and will remain that way until (if and when) CO2 levels start to go down of their own accord. I wasn't stating as a fact that they would.. I was pointing out what would happen if they did..

You are wrong Bugsy; Ian’s graph is based on data to do with human emissions of CO2 and the atmospheric increase; that data is sourced from the Mauna Loa record, and records of ACO2 emissions:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

The AF line in Ian’s graph is simply 40% of the ACO2 emissions graph which as I say is based on the official data; check yourself.

As to a difference with Knorr, have your eyes tested.

This:

“40% of 8 is bound to be less than 40% of 10”

Is hilarious; but seriously, 40% is always less than 100% which is much more to the point.

Where I think you are going wrong is confusing the AF in terms of the atmospheric increase when it is 40% of the ACO2 emissions. Your sterling work in discovering Knorr derived the AF from, in part, the atmospheric increase has probably stuck in your mind.

But thanks for coming and making me check my facts and generating a good albeit spurious argument; much better than the usual declarations from ‘scientists’ who drop in from time to time.

Curmudgeon, ½ lives, you say:

“The article talks about a radical departure from that orthodoxy”

Not really; the AF, and this is where Bugsy is misleading, is an increasing amount in real terms; it must be because it is a constant 40% of an increasing amount of human emissions, ACO2.

The orthodox view says that even if ACO2 stopped increasing and CO2 increase ended the CO2 already in the atmosphere would stay there for a century. This is problematic:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

But that is a different issue. This article simply looks at how and from what source the atmospheric CO2 increases.

The orthodox view is that ALL the increase is from ACO2; both Knorr’s and Ian Hill’s graphs, despite Bugsy’s super-vision spotting discrepancies, show that is impossible.

That is the point of the article.

Finally I note Hansen says temps have been flat for a decade due to natural variation and reduced AGW forcing. How can AGW forcing be reduced when CO2 is still increasing?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012

cohenite,

I thought you regarded Hansen as a "loon".

Doing a bit of cherry-picking are we?

Here's some reading material.

http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628

cohenite

You misunderstand what I said.. the article is a departure from the climate orthodoxy.. I wasn't saying it was wrong, just that it has to explain more on a crucial point about why it says what it does.

The climate orthodoxy on the action of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere has nothing whatever to back it - they simply assumed that the increase is due to greenhouse gases and worked all the theory out from that.. it hasn't been checked with anything or against anything. It is an entirely theoretical construct.

Curmudgeon: I agree.

Poirot; there is a post on the current heatwave at Jo’s:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/australia-was-hot-and-is-hot-so-what-this-is-not-an-unusual-heat-wave/

Look at the map; those are official records; the point I take from them is this: even if you believe in AGW and that we are hotter today than ever, what was causing those extreme temps in the past which, despite ‘adjustments’ by the BOM, are still very close to today’s records?

I have read the conversation post by the BOM and there will be a rejoinder posted at Jo’s over the weekend.

Hansen is a loon about AGW and the fossils; he is quite reasonable about nuclear, aerosols and now temperature; but to say that temps are flat because of a reduction in AGW forcing when CO2 is continuing to rise.

cohenite,

Yes, yes, very impressive...little pockmarks of "temperatures" scattered over the centuries - what is that supposed to prove? If all Jo's temperatures happened simultaneously over a sustained period, I'd say you might be on something.

It's a bit like Craig Kelly over at WUWT...dealt with here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/impeach-craig-kelly/

Whoops! - Sydney broke another heat record just now - fancy that!

They are not "...little pockmarks of "temperatures" scattered over the centuries"; they often correlate with continent wide 'heatwaves'.

Yes, Sydney has officialy recorded its hottest ever, 45.8, 0.5C hotter tha the 1939 prior record, which proves my point.

As to Sydney heatwave records, consider this:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/heat-waves-of-5-days.html

The worst heatwave was in 1961.

As to why; this article shows that humans are NOT responsible for all or even most of the increase in CO2, so even if you believe in AGW, it must be due to natural process.

AGW is such a morbid process; sitting around waiting for the end of the world.

Posted by cohenite
As to why; this article shows that humans are NOT responsible for all or even most of the increase in CO2, so even if you believe in AGW, it must be due to natural process.
_____________________________________________________________________________
None of the above takes into account what we know about the carbon cycle and a good deal else besides.

There are three main ways in which we can arrive at an estimate of the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the air.

The first is simply to add up the amount of fossil fuel we have burnt. This leads to an estimate of anthropogenic CO2 which is roughly twice that observed but that increase is in the same proportion as human emission's have risen and is accounted for by the fact that nature absorbs more than half of the CO2 that man emits.

The second method relies on the fact that carbon comes in three different types (isotopes) which have slightly different weights. They are referred to as Carbon 12, 13 and 14. Fossil fuels contain virtually no carbon 14 up until 1954 we were able to measure a steady reduction in atmospheric carbon 14 which was consistent with the excess CO2 coming from burning fossil fuels. After that date the nuclear testing altered the ratio of carbon 14 in the air and the method became unusable. Now plants also have a slight preference for carbon 12 over carbon 13, this fact allows us to determine the proportion of CO2 which originates from burning (fossil) plant material. The ratio of Carbon 13 to 12 has been slowly dropping in the atmosphere since the 1850s, despite plants preference for carbon 12.

The last estimate comes from measuring the decline in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere. This indicates first how much oxygen, burning fossil fuels has consumed, and is in line with increase of CO2 levels.

Your suggestion that the extra CO2 could be being released from the ocean is not possible as ocean CO2 levels are also rising.

warmair, you do not know what you are talking about. The AF case for showing that ACO2 is not the sole source of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not contradicted by any of your 3 'proofs'.

In any event your 3 'proofs' are riddled with mistakes; for instance C14 is not a product of fossil fuel; and the isotope distinction between fossil fuels and natural sources is problematic.

The level of O2 in the air has NOT been measured to have declined within any meaningful level of uncertainty; and the excuse that the chemical process of burning fossil fuel uses O2 is reason to declare an O2 shortage is pure alarmist junk especially since natural processes such as deep ocean geochemistry's effect on O2 levels dwarfs the human impact.

warmair, do you even understand and accept the notion of the AF?

Posted by cohenite
warmair, you do not know what you are talking about. The AF case for showing that ACO2 is not the sole source of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not contradicted by any of your 3 'proofs'.
____________________________________________________________________________________
reply
The two references you give in your article question whether the anthropogenic sources of CO2 from land clearing have been slightly over estimated. They do not question the proposition that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. It is in fact you who do not understand what your references are talking about, which you then compound by your failure to understand the carbon cycle.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted by cohenite
In any event your 3 'proofs' are riddled with mistakes; for instance C14 is not a product of fossil fuel; and the isotope distinction between fossil fuels and natural sources is problematic.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Reply
I am glad you understand that Carbon 14 is not a product of burning fossil fuels that is the whole point. Carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays but has a half life of about 6000 years which means it is not found in fossil fuels. Therefore a reduction in atmospheric Carbon 14 is an indication that the carbon source is due to the burning of fossil fuels. As previously noted testing nukes after 1954 stuffed that method but prior to that date the amount of carbon 14 had fallen by 2%.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

We have had good measurements of atmospheric oxygen since 1990 not only have they fallen but the rate is actually increasing.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/imce/cgo_o2_plot.gif
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

Warmair; you are outrageous! I have seen the Scripps O2 ‘depletion’ graphs and am aware of the O2 scare-mongering.

The Scripps measurements have been for 20 years and the graphs MISREPRESENT the huge amount of O2 in the atmosphere; for a rebuttal of this aspect of the AGW scare-mongering see:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/oxygen_scarcity_scarewatch.pdf

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/oxygen-crisis.html

The C14 marker and spike will be dealt with in a follow-up article with more detailed analysis of the ACO2 issue so I won’t bother with it now.

In respect of the AF your comment about the uncertainty of land-clearing emissions is just nonsense; Knorr tests for this and presents a number of options to ameliorate this uncertainty.

And of course Knorr does not use his study, which was to verify the constancy of the AF, to consider the issue of whether ACO2 is causing all the increase in atmospheric CO2; that is an inference made in the article; no one has rebutted it. No one has rebutted it because it is PLAIN.

It is plain as shown in Ian Hill’s graph where the increase in ACO2, atmospheric CO2 and the AF are ALL expressed in Gts. HOW can the AF, as measured in Gts, cause all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 when the Gt increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREATER than the Gts of the AF available to cause the increase in atmospheric CO2?!

All the convoluted comments from you and Bugsy ignore that basic fact; the only way you can rebut it is to say Knorr and the AF are wrong. Are they?

The effect can be compared with the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 40% of all CO2 [as per the constant ACO2 AF] which is 100, so ACO2 is 40 and natural CO2 is 60; when all CO2 is 200 ACO2's 40% will be 80 so natural CO2 will be 120, an increase of 60; at 300, ACO2 is 120, natural CO2 is 180 and so on; natural CO2 MUST be contributing to the increase in total CO2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

This is where the article is in a serious state of confusion

The airborne fraction is not the proportion of man made CO2 in the atmosphere compared to natural CO2, It is the proportion of man made Co2 which is absorbed and removed from the the atmosphere.

First of all the amount of man made CO2 absorbed by nature is roughly 60%.
The proportion of man made Co2 which is absorbed by nature has not changed by a significant amount since 1850. This is all the we really mean when we say that the airborne fraction has remained constant.

So to state the article's proposition correctly if man made Co2 doubles from 100 to 200 then the total removed by nature is 120 and 80 parts remain in the atmosphere.

In the statement above the article is claiming that 120 parts are natural CO2 which is nonsense and makes the conclusion meaningless.

Now Knorr goes in for some complicated statistics which makes a reasonable case that the proportion of CO2 absorbed by nature has remained constant over decades, but this is not expected to continue, as the concentration of Co2 rises the capacity of the oceans and biomass to absorb it should fall. At present there are some papers which indicate a recent decreasing ability of the earth's systems to remove excess Co2 from the atmosphere. [Le Que´re´ et al., 2007; Schuster and Watson, 2007; Canadell et al., 2007]

warmair concludes:

"This is where the article is in a serious state of confusion"

And then says:

"The airborne fraction is not the proportion of man made CO2 in the atmosphere compared to natural CO2"

Noone said it was.

Then;

"It is the proportion of man made Co2 which is absorbed and removed from the the atmosphere."

No, exactly the opposite; the AF is the fraction of ACO2 which is not absorbed and stays in the atmosphere.

The AF has been calculated at about 40% of ACO2, that is human emissions.

The graph by Ian Hill shows the AF as a 40% fraction of ACO2 emissions; this is expressed in Gts; this is compared with the increase in atmospheric CO2 which is also in Gts.

The AF is LESS than the amospheric increase.

Therefore the AF, which is ALL the ACO2 available to increase atmospheric CO2 increase, is NOT ENOUGH to supply ALL the atmospheric increase.

I really don't know why that is so difficult or why warmair and others are so confused!

The one who is confused the most here cohenite, is you and you don't even know it.

All this bluff and bluster doesn’t change the fact that it is you who are wrong cohenite.

Astoundingly so, in fact.

You don’t even know exactly how the airborne fraction (AF) is calculated!

Put simply, it is the change in CO2 over the total emissions. Knorr used the total emissions, similarly to Canadell, which is (F-fossil+F-LUC), that is the emissions due to fossil fuel burning plus the emissions due to land use change. He then calculated that the ratio averaged ~40% using that emissions data.
Now, you have applied that 40% to a different set of emissions data. I know this because in Ian Hills graph, in 1966 the change in CO2 somehow exceeds that of the total emissions! Oh dear. Whereas, for Knorr, the change in CO2 never comes close to touching the emissions line in the graph, that’s because it is a always ~40% of the emissions data.
The emissions data that Ian Hill uses appear to be missing about 1.5Gt/y from each data point, which is approximately that of the land use component. However your change in CO2 from the Mauna Loa site is the same. Which means that your 40% is out approximately 0.6Gt/yr.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf+html

What you have done is apply the AF calculated from one set of emissions data, and applied it to different (lower) set of emissions data, which is a WRONG WRONG WRONG (i.e.invalid) thing to do. No wonder the 40% doesn't match the change in CO2!

Sorry about the capitals but I wanted to get the message across.
You are all het up about a simple calculation error, but that appears to be the standard these days.

Curmudgeon:
The change in CO2 IS accelerating, in line with emissions. I think what is confusing you is that the change in emissions is already expressed as a rate (i.e Gt/y increase), and the trend, although linear is not flat, but rather increasing (i.e. positive), which means ACCELERATING. And this is even so with the data Cox espouses.

Bugsy; I will check to see whether Dr Quirk's graph is indeed a combined F-fossil+ land use change-LUC as per Canadell and not just fossil fuel emission.

LUC is 25% of F as per Figure 7.3:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

If it were the case then the Gt estimation for the AF and ACO2 in Ian's graph would rise by 25%; even so it would still be below Knorr's AF graph which is 46% of F+LUC; and Knorr's AF at 46% is STILL below the atmospheric increase.

In other words Bugsy, the point would still stand.

Actually, no cohenite, the point does not stand.

F-LUC is not 25% of F, it is 1.5Gt/y and has been remarkably stable for more than 50 years. It is estimated here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf+html

That means that your 'AF' trend line is out by about 0.6Gt/y, which looks about right.

But by all means, try and defend it to the death, Black cohenKnight.

Knorr found that Canadell et al was wrong about an increasing AF. That’s what he found, isn’t it Bugsy?

Canadell’s quantification of LUC at [a constant] 1.5Gt is about the same as found by the IPCC, 1.6Gt, and shown in Figure 7.3 as linked to above. That’s right too, isn’t it Bugsy?

1.6Gt is 25% of the fossil emissions at 6.4Gt; that’s true too, isn’t it Bugsy?

THEREFORE the top and bottom lines in Ian’s graph would need to be adjusted up by 25%. That would still put the constant AF BELOW the atmospheric increase.

Anyway, even you can see even Knorr’s AF is often below the atmospheric increase.

Basically, Bugs, you are disagreeing with Knorr’s finding of a constant AF, aren’t you?

No, cohenite, I am not disagreeing with Knorr's finding of a constant AF, no matter how much you misrepresent me.

What you have done is misrepresent what Knorr calculated and applied it incorrectly.

Yes, the IPCC figure shows 1.6Gt, for the 1990s (see the Figure legend), which is what Canadell also states. If it is 25% of the average emissions for the 1990s, then fine. What it isn't, is 25% of emissions for the 1950s, 1960s etc.

If Knorr found that the AF was not increasing, then so be it, that is probably true. It's a fine point and best left to the real climate scientists to debate its significance.

What isn't true is your misapplication of misunderstood calculations using one set of data on a different set of data. This has led to a grievously erroneous conclusion. It doesn't help matters by defending yourself with weak, erroneous arguments that only serve to display your biases against the truth.

That's not science, that religion, remember?

1. the AF figure is not a steady, year by year, constant. It varies a lot in the short term, and this is mentioned in several papers, including Canadell & Ors, which cohenite refers to (but appears not have read properly):

"The AF has a large interannual variability and has ranged from 0.0 to 0.8 since 1959 (Fig. 2 A). This variability is mainly due to the responses of natural sinks, particularly land sinks (Fig. 1 B), to interannual climate variability (e.g., from El Niño/Southern Oscillation) and volcanic eruptions (10)."

It seems cohenite has mistakenly concluded that Knorr meant that the AF was a steady, year by year figure.

2. cohenite seemingly refuses to believe that the his "principle of a constant in an increasing total" arguments only makes internal sense if AF is (mistakenly) taken to refer to the atmosphere overall, not just human emitted CO2. Other people in this thread have tried to point this out to him, he appears to simply refuse to believe it.

3. Yesterday I emailed Knorr and pointed out the arguments which cohenite was trying to derive from his AF paper. With his permission, I can quote his preliminary comments:

"The roughly 40-50% are a long-term average, correct. There are big
deviations at the interannual, even 20-30year time frame.
I'm on my way out right now, I am afraid, I could look a this in about a week.

What puzzles me: if 40-50% of man-made emissions stay in the
atmosphere after account for the balance of the natural fluxes, and
the CO2 increase is consistent with just that increase (both are shown
in the articlel), then clearly man is responsible for that rise in CO2
levels. So how could he arrive at the conclusion that man is only
partially responsible?"

I think we have every reason to expect that Knorr will be very unimpressed when he reads the whole article.

Contrary to what steve from brisbane [SfB] implies I have specifically said that Knorr does not deal with whether ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2 increase. Dr Knorr confirmed that a figure of 40% for the AF was reasonable and that is all that has been attributed to him.

My take on Knorr is what I have stated; that a constant AF is less than the atmospheric CO2 increase.

The interannual variability which SfB mentions is plain from Knorr's Figure 1 which is in the article.

When Dr Knorr reads the blasphemous article I hope he addresses that point; which is, in many years the atmospheric increase is GREATER than the AF. If the AF is less than the atmospheric increase it doesn't matter what the sinks are doing; natural CO2 emissions must be contributing.

SfB can email God if he likes on that point but I'm afraid I'll still believe my eyes.

Anyway good old Bugsy did have a point and Quirk's graph only deals with F not LUC. So, as I explained, with LUC, according to the IPCC, 25% of F that would mean the AF and total ACO2 emissions lines in Ian's graph will have to be moved upwards by 25%.

Bugsy's observation that the 25% adjustment would only apply to the 90's appears to be a red herring since even his Canadell says LUC is relatively unchanging; ie:

"Model-based estimates of emissions from land-use change (FLUC) remained approximately constant from 1959 to 2006,
averaging 1.5 0.5 PgC y1."

When the 25% adjustment is made the trend line for the AF [which accounts for interannual variability] becomes y=0.0559x + 1.2784, which is still less than atmospheric increase of CO2 of y=0.0575x + 1.5876; and total ACO2 emissions also moves up accordingly, as do the Gt amounts.

I will ask Graham to replace Ian's graph with the new one.

For what is likely to not be the last time, the 'adjustment' i for F-LUC is NOT 25%! FFS

It's +1.5Gt/y. It's been a realtively constant 1.5Gt for decades, not a 'constant ' 25%.

For example, at the start of Ian's Graph, for the year 1959, 1.5Gt/2.5=0.6, or an needed adjustment of 60%!, you are out 60%!

Looking at it another way, a 25% 'adjustment' for 2.5Gt would be only a 0.625Gt/yr adjustment for 1959, and that is clearly wrong. in fact it would only apply to those total emissions values that are 4x the F-LUC value, i.e 1990s, the rest would be in error.

Just add 1.5Gt/y to each of the datatpoints on Ians Graph, not 25%. Then we'll see, eh?

If you don't, then you will have proved that you aren't just wrong, you will be deliberately lying to defend yourself.

It's poor old Bob the mountain climbing electrical engineer that I feel sorry for, I don't think he knows who he's gotten mixed up with.

Thank God, we have lawyers to defend us from the evil agenda driven government dependent scientists, scientists whose sole aim is not finding truth, but winning grants and who are willing to fudge, lie and destroy human civilization as we know it as long as they can get grants.

cohenite, seems to me that you want readers to believe that you understand Knorr's work better than Knorr.

How likely is that?

And given that Knorr had answered one, small question you put to him, why didn't you then put your controversial conclusion to him for comment

Part 1.

Knorr's paper shows the AF has not changed over the period of study; this contradicts Canadell and other studies showing it increasing.

The AF is the amount of human emitted CO2, ACO2, left in the atmosphere after that amount of ACO2 is areabsorbed by sinks.

ACO2 is calculated using fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture and land use change, LUC. Canadell finds LUC to have been a constant 1.5Gt/yr since 1959. Intuitively this would appear to be problematic. Tom Quirk notes ice core records from the 1950'2 onwards suggest LUC has been a net absorber.

Knorr calculates the AF by combining all emissions, natural and ACO2, detrending for ENSO and volcanoes to produce the remainder which is made up of ACO2, the AF and then comparing that to all ACO2 emissions. Inherent in this, apart from the assumption of a constant LUC amount [although Knorr does query this], is the assumption that natural CO2 emissions and sinks are in balance. Dr Knorr confirms this in his communication with SfB when he says:

"if 40-50% of man-made emissions stay in the atmosphere after account for the balance of the natural fluxes,"

The article has gone to some effort to throw doubt on that key assumption of a balance between natural CO2 emissions and sinks.

If that assumption of balance is wrong then doubt is cast on the calculation of the AF. If the assumption is right then interannual variation of the AF is moot because if the natural factors are removed from the equation than the AF must be a constant ~40% of the total ACO2 emissions which has increased over the period; that would mean the AF would vary from year to year while remaining a fixed %.

Part 2.

It is this point which seems to have confused SfB who has accused me of saying the AF applies to "the atmosphere overall", I haven't, and assuming in real terms the AF is fixed, which I also haven't.

If he means I have said the 40% AF must occur every year instead of being an average over the whole period for that to happen would mean the AF is calculated by reference to ALL CO2 emissions not just ACO2.

I have not misrepresented Knorr which as I say is about the disproof of the idea from Canadell andothers that the AF is increasing.

The interpretation that the constant AF [along with other factors, primarily the lack of balance which the AGW supporters have not referred] means ACO2 cannot explain all the atmospheric increase is the article's point; not Dr Knorr's

To sum up the real situation

Scientists want to know if the earth's systems can continue to suck up CO2 at the present or will our emissions start to overwhelm natures ability to absorb CO2.
One group lead by Knorr says well it has not so far, another group says it has started to do so recently.

The way scientists attempt to answer this question is to add up all the anthropogenic Co2 emissions and then compare it to the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The result when averaged over decades is that very roughly 40% (+or-14%) remains in the atmosphere. This is referred to as the Airborne Fraction. If AF increases the interpretation is that nature ability to absorb anthropogenic CO2 has declined thus compounding the excess CO2 problem. Cohenite's interpretation is that natural Co2 emissions, must in that case, have increased, which does not advance his case as the most likely explanation is that higher temperatures are the cause which comes back to climate change and is a predicted feedback

warmair, the effect of extra CO2 being emitted due to AGW warming and thereby amplifying the initial AGW warming is much smaller than AGW theory relies on; see Franks:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

Anyway, that is beside the point; there has been no warming for 16 years and the warming over the 20thC was due to solar.

"Anyway, that's beside the point; there has been no warming for 16 years and the warming over the 20thC was due to solar."

Absolute classic, cohenite.....the epitome of denial all rolled up in one succinct sentence.

Congrats :)

Consider the Jet Streams Poirot; variations in these are being blamed for the warm Arctic conditions and consequent freezing European and Indo-China conditions, which in turn have delayed the monsoon onset in Australia and caused the NOT record heatwave in Sydney [not because it didn't take into account UHI and how it was calculated is problematic; Jo will have a post on the tecnicalities soon].

Anyway AGW blames CO2 for all this but, as Louis Hissink explains, the jet streams react to changes in solar wind flux not CO2. The solar wind is essentially a stream of protons and other electrically positive ions from the sun. The jet streams are probably linked physical to the behaviour of the auroral Birkeland currents which only become visible when the plasma they are made of, moves from dark current mode, to glow mode. These phenomena can be forecasted from observations of solar activity, specifically CME eruptions and sunspots and coronal holes. These unpredictable ejections of plasma have a significant effect on the physical behaviour of the earth’s electrical conductive plasma sphere, including the basal plasma double layer, the base of which life flourishes.

How CO2 fits, if at all, into this electro-plasma system needs to be worked on. But that isn't going to happen while the scam of AGW is bank-rolling its false science at the expense of solar research.

...says the man who can't get a simple graphical calculation right.

My graph says it must be natural! LMAO

Not, "I don't understand the way it is calculated, nor why that is important, nor why my application of it is in error."

Anyway, when is that corrected graph going up cohenite?

When hell freezes over I bet, which according to Lawson, might be any year now. Just wait and see, when the CO2 starts coming back down again...

“Anyway, when is that corrected graph going up cohenite?”

Thanks for asking and coming Bugsy. On reflection I prefer Quirk’s analysis of ACO2 contributions which regards LUC as a negative emitter or at worst neutral. Tom has an interesting paper recently submitted for publication dealing with the CO2 decline in the 1940’s, which correlates with a decline in SST and shows that decline is greater than ACO2 emissions.

There are also many recent studies showing an increase in the ‘greenness’ of the planet; it is well established that modern cropping causes plants to grow quicker and larger thus taking in more CO2, but as well natural vegetation has been increasing as even NASA notes.

Yet Canadell assumes LUC, mainly from deforestation, has remained a constant 1.5Gt/yr since 1959 to 2006; that’s 47 years where LUC has remained the same.

That assumption is as far into Tinkerbell land as the assumption natural emissions are equal to natural sinks is. As an ironic corollary I note that AGW/green based power policies are causing people to resume the cutting down of trees for heat; in short AGW theory and policies may eventually confirm what AGW has predicted:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html

How sick is that!? What a blight AGW is. But for argument’s sake let’s assume Canadell’s fanciful assumption is correct and add the constant 1.5Gt/yr to Ian’s graph.

So, in 1965: graphed AF 1.25Gt + 1.5Gt = 2.75Gt; atmospheric increase 3.5Gt; did the AF supply all the atmospheric increase that year? It couldn’t irrespective of what the sinks were doing.

The same in: 72, 77, 79, 83, 87, 88, 93, 98, 2002, 2003, 2005.

What about those years Bugsy? And, again, what about the assumption of a natural balance between CO2 emissions and sinks?

As trolls go Bugsy, you’re more useful than most; but like AGW you’re still rubbish.

On a brighter note Hansen’s 4 years prediction of the world’s imminent doom due to AGW made in 2009 has expired:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/22/newsbytes-the-4-year-doom-cycle-gets-rebooted/

What a pack of dopes.

Before Bugsy jumps in I noticed I should have added the 1.5Gt/yr to the ACO2 top line of Ian's graph and only added 40% of the 1.5Gt to the AF line; 40% of 1.5Gt is 0.6Gt.

So, as well as reducing the new Canadell AF for the years I have mentioned the number of years where the AF falls short of the atmospheric increase would be much more than the list I gave with only 0.6Gt added to Ian's AF graphed line.

And again you display your complete misunderstanding of the calculations and it seems even the concepts you are using to make your point.
You have been told clearly and repeatedly where the 'correction' of 1.5Gt/y should be applied, that is against the total emissions, and the 40% AF should be recalculated.
It does NOT get added to the AF. The value that would get added to the AF is 40% of 1.5%, or 0.6Gt/Yr, across the graph as a whole.That would bring it into line with the green line, which is a regression of the change in CO2, showing that the change is CO2 is easily accounted for by human emissions.
The actual LUC value may change, but that would require a complete recalculation and then another recalculation of the AF and is out of the scope of this simple datat correction.

In science, unintended ignorance is all too common and easily forgiven, because easily corrected.

Wilful ignorance is not tolerated.

Ok, so you recognised where you went wrong, well done. Corrected graph please.

However, whatever you wrote about the 'number of years where the AF falls short of teh atmospheric increase' is nonsense. What happens to the number of years where the atmospheric increase is less than the AF? Oh, that's right, you don't know what Knorr really did, and what it means.

My mistake, go back to reading your conveyancing documents.

“Wilful ignorance is not tolerated” “You have been told”.

Nice. Do you work for Nicola Roxon?

“What happens to the number of years where the atmospheric increase is less than the AF?”

READ THE ARTICLE, especially the 2nd last paragraph.

You have not addressed the issue of whether natural sinks are in balance with natural emissions. Knorr shows they must be expanding for the AF to be constant so how can there be a balance?

And what does Knorr think about LUC emissions?

“go back to reading your conveyancing documents”

Is that meant to be an insult? Old system title documents are fascinating; the best read like English novels especially if there are reversionary and life interests; and the calligraphy is beautiful.

What will climate scientists go back to doing when the scam of AGW is over?

Who cares.

cohenite, it's the second last paragraph that shows your lack of understanding and even after correction, your willful ignorance. After you factor in the LUC value, you will see that the 40% pretty much matches the regression line doesn't it? That's because it will then be pretty much a replication of Knorrs graph. But to then start arguing that some years are above the regression line and some are below, and that means that nature must be belching out CO2 in those years where it is above is just idiotic. It is easily explained that some years the natural sinks aren't taking up as much CO2, and some years they take up more, but generally it averages out to about 40%, as shown by the regression. If you actually understood the papers you cite, and not just pretended to understand, you would know this.

You have not 'been told', it's just a fact. Any science PhD student that argues incorrect trivialities like you do with people who know better would not get far. It tends to make you look, well like a bit of a dimwit who doesn't take correction or criticism.

Your last post reiterated this, and was pretty much content free. Where's the corrected graph cohenite?

I know you don't want to post it, because it makes your argument super weak, and it will be there for everyone to see graphically. Much better to stick to text arguments so that you can hide your ignorance.

You are so tedious but at least you now admit sinks can vary; and if natural sinks can vary then why can't natural emissions?

And what is holding your fantasy together is not only the conceded myth that natural sinks and emissions balance but that LUC is also unvarying; not on an averaged basis but the same amount from year to year.

This is nothing but a ludicrous assumption which is the basis of this cobbled together facade.

Take it away, and you really can't take something which is implausible away, and the notion that the AF = the atmospheric increase is a joke.

You are obviously not dim so your complaint of "wilful ignorance" is just another self-attribute best and ironically applied to AGW devotees.

The graph stands.

" and the notion that the AF = the atmospheric increase is a joke."

Well, of course the AF is a ratio, it's the atmospheric increase/the estimated emissions. So, in a very real sense it IS the atmospheric increase, just expressed in a different way.

I would have expected you to understand this, if you had any sort of comprehension of the papers you cited. But in reality I know you don't understand the stuff you spout off on.

"The graph stands."

Of course it does, I wouldn't expect you to admit you are an idiot, which is what a corrected graph would show.

I am interested though, what your co-author the mountain climbing 'data analyst' thinks about this turn of events.

Is he prepared to stake his professional reputation, such as it is for a retiree, on this obvious piece of garbage?

Cohenite

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

This article brings up an interesting point, and that is based on data prior to 1850, the climate went through a number of small fluxuations in temperature, but as temperature increased, the level of Co2 in the atmosphere also increased. This leads to the question if temperature increases and nature now emits slightly more CO2 then what is going to happen to man's emissions of Co2 ? This suggests that AF could reach a 100% If not why not ?

I loved your bit about solar wind what a classic bit of lets baffle them all with science.
See second post page 11

“Well, of course the AF is a ratio, it's the atmospheric increase/the estimated emissions”

No, it’s the ratio between the estimated emissions of ACO2 and the ACO2 staying in the atmosphere.

“I wouldn't expect you to admit you are an idiot”

Still looking in the mirror, aren’t you.

Bob is working on a more detailed analysis of CO2/ACO2 sinks, emissions, and residency.

We thought we’d put a simple analysis out there first to get some informed feedback; we failed.

Warmair; you and Bugsy seem to think the AF is automatically equal to the increase in atmospheric CO2 because natural sinks and emissions are in balance and therefore any increase is due to the unnatural ACO2 emissions. That would explain you saying this:

“This suggests that AF could reach a 100% If not why not ?”

A 100% of what?

The AF is the proportion of ACO2 emissions which stay in the atmosphere; it is not the proportion of all emissions, natural and anthropogenic, which stay in the atmosphere; the ACO2 proportion of all emissions is 3.67% according to AR4 and DOE. How could all ACO2 stay in the atmosphere; it could only if the assumption that natural emissions and sinks are in balance

But thanks for conceding that nature can emit “slightly more CO2”. That combined with Bugsy’s acknowledgement that sinks must be expanding must mean the natural balance is unreasonable. Even the IPCC appears to think so:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-2-4.html

So, have we now accepted that natural sinks and emissions are not in balance?

Yes, you failed alright.

Failed to use the correct values.
Failed to reach a valid conclusion.
Failed to understand exactly what the calculations mean.
Failed to even admit that you failed.

"Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to ya! I'll bite your legs off!"

cohenite: given the concessions you've been forced to make in this thread, surely you have to further concede that that the subheading to the article "Warmer seas appear to be contributing more to CO2 emissions than man" which appears in the 16 January listing for it is in no way demonstrated by your paper.

Buggsy: if cohenite is refusing to do a corrected graph, it wouldn't take much for someone else to do it. Have you got a handy program for that?

SfB; "concessions conceded":

I have disputed the inclusion of LUC emissions on the basis they are not net emitters; there is simply too much uncertainty.

This really all turns on whether you clowns can drag your sorry a...s to admit natural sinks and emissions are NOT in balance.

But go ahead, add a constant 0.6Gts to the AF line and 1.5Gts to the ACO2 line and draw your own graph; mine's done; its on my wall and I'm throwing darts at it. I call the dart-throwing: AGW predicting.

Never mind, cohenite, "It's just a flesh wound!"

I wonder if this would be any help:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html

I'm pretty sure that the following things are all consistent with the "standard" climate science view of what's been going on regarding CO2 increase since the industrial revolution:

* the amount of fossil fuel burnt
* the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as directly measured from air in ice cores
* the changes in isotope mix of CO2 in the atmosphere in the same period
* declining O2 levels over time as fossil fuels have been burnt
* the declining pH of the sea surface waters as more CO2 is absorbed

As against this, cohenite wants us to believe that plant stomata are probably more accurate at working out CO2 levels than ice core measurements; hence CO2 levels have been all over the place for-evah! Hence humans are not responsible for increasing CO2 just because we've been burning all that fossil fuel.

Apart from the obvious "I'll grasp at anything" aspect of the lunge towards stomata (especially ironic when "skeptics" are so skeptical of tree ring proxies,) the argument simply wishes away well estimated amounts of human created CO2 into a black hole of mystery.

It is an absurdly desperate argument, based on one thread of skeptic hope that stomata as a proxy for CO2 levels will overturn all other evidence.

And cohenite is desperate to avoid admitting that he has misunderstood Knorr and other AF papers as somehow providing support for his esoteric theory.

Warmair; you and Bugsy seem to think the AF is automatically equal to the increase in atmospheric CO2 because natural sinks and emissions are in balance and therefore any increase is due to the unnatural ACO2 emissions. That would explain you saying this:

“This suggests that AF could reach a 100% If not why not ?”

A 100% of what?

___________________________________________________________________________________
100% of man's Co2 emissions . In other words AF goes from 40% to 100%

If CO2 levels rise by say 12 PPM for every 1 deg increase of temperature (as per your link) then I am happy to concede that the increase in temperature may be directly responsible for total of 8.4 ppm (0.7X12) over the last 150 years. The problem is that nature is either a net emitter or a net absorber. In a world without man made Co2 for levels to rise in the atmosphere it means nature has to be a net emitter which leaves no place for man made Co2 go except to accumulate in the atmosphere. In other words 100% of man's emissions of Co2 must remain in the atmosphere and the airborne fraction hits 100%. Can you explain what is wrong with that idea ?

Land based sinks are increasing; the "Normalized Difference Vegetation Index" (NDVI)confirms this; literally there are more plants and denser growth; this is why I think the Canadell LUC figure is problematic.

As well oceans can be both an emitter via the increase in temperature and a sink via the growth of cynaobacteria which have increased in recent years;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-ocean-wins-again/#more-38673

nature is not simple and AGW is based on a simple nature.

I am sooo tempted to say something about simple natures...

but I won't.

Seriously, the LUC figure may be problematic, but that is beside the point, you cannot ignore it and then use Knorrs 40% AF without factoring it in, because he factored it in when calculating the AF.

Your last post makes you sound confused cohenite. Somehow land sinks are increasing, but the oceans can be a bit one way or the other, a litany of "we don't know for sure, I'll ignore it then". But of course somewhere is belching out huge wads of CO2 that totally eclipses what we are adding, and it's not going back in. That we know for sure, right? But can't be phytoplankton or cyanobacteria or whatever, right? Or land use, right? What then? What is delivering such massive amounts of CO2 that noone has noticed.

Give us a call when you figure it out.