“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.