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.