"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.