Bugsy,

Was just about to point that out.

cohenite,

"Bob's a real climate scientist...."

Here's his CV at the bottom of your article:

"Bob Cormack is a retired senior research associate and professor at the University of Colorado. He completed a BS in Math and Physics in 1969 and a MS in Electrical Engineering in 1987.

Bob has 25 years of engineering experience in private industry..."

While Bob sounds quite accomplished, there's no sign of his being a "climate scientist".

Why would you claim an associate is a climate scientist when they're not?

It doesn't do much for your credibility.

"Why would you claim an associate is a climate scientist when they're not?"

I explained why he is a climate scientist; I can't help it if you are to dopey to understand; anyway, he climbed Mt Everest; have you? Bob had a good look at the climate when he was up there; you can't beat that sort of experience.

Bugsy; I'm timed off the Knorr article so since you're here I'll respond.

You asked about Knorr finding the 40% AF; Knorr notes in the Abstract:

"It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero."

Knorr CONFIRMS the 40% figure and contradicts other studies which found an increase in the AF.

As to what the AF means; put it this way; human emissions of CO2, ACO2, annually go into the sky and then over the year some of the naughty CO2 comes back down, in fact 60%; so that means 40% OF THE EMISSIONS stays up there in the sky. That is the AF; and every year the amount of the AF has stayed about the same, 40%, with insignificant uncertainties.

Is that so hard?

We know what the AF is in Gts; and we know what the increase in the atmospheric increase in CO2 is in Gts; and both the difference between the AF and the amospheric increase and rate of increase of the difference is known in Gts and shown by the difference in slopes between the AF and the atmospheric CO2 increase.

End result; ACO2 CANNOT be supplying all the increase in atmospheric CO2.

And that is the point of the article.

Knorr didn't find the 40% (actually 40%+/- 14% in the introduction), but anyway, yes that's what it is. The fraction of "ACO2" that stays in the atmosphere.

Now for the next bit: How is the AF calculated?

On 'belief' and 'denial'.

http://www.kudelka.com.au/2013/01/no-cause-for-alarm/

OK qanda, you don't like the term CAGW. But I'm not using it in an abusive or derogatory way....just descriptive.

It seems to me we can have:

*GW - all natural warming
*AGW - warming where man plays some part but where the consequences are minor. Entirely arbitrarily, the IPCC et al have decided that that level of warming is 2c above 1850 levels.
*CAGW - warming where man plays some part but where the consequences are major enough to justify uprooting society to avoid those consequences.

I accept AGW...we've had some warming in the past 100 yrs or so and man had some hand in that. Its beyond dispute that raising CO2 levels will cause some warming so every time I breathe out I'm raising the global temp by some vanishingly small amount. If I had to put a number on it I'd say man contributed about 25% to the warming so far since 1850.

But its only the CAGW that I'm interested in. Less than 2c warming is of little concern and is probably beneficial to mankind. Whatismore, if that 2c is natural or largely natural, there's not much we can do about it anyway.

I think the evidence for a warming over 2c with man being the main culprit is poor to non-existent. We had an extended period of no warming despite continued CO2 increases. The MET is now admitting that will continue for some time. I think anyone who is honest must see that as a deal breaker.

Here's a realistic assessment of what the Met office's recent paper was saying:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21066534