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