"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"

It is 40%; the AF simply means that % of the human emissions of CO2, ACO2, which are left in the atmosphere after reabsorption. It was not Knorr's intention to show whether the AF could supply all the increase in atmospheric CO2 but to show recent studies concluding the AF was increasing were wrong; he did that.

Knorr calculated the AF for reasons explained in the introduction; people should read it; Knorr explains that he extends data back to 1850 to overcome described uncertainties in the data. The method he uses, which Bugsy can't seem to find, is described in the section of the paper titled METHODS.

Basically Knorr generates a time function which is cross checked against all sources of CO2 emissions and sinks and atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

What Bugsy appears to be saying, and what he knows is not the case since he also appears to be the scientist on duty, is that since Knorr's time function is correlated with CO2 data from various sources it must mean the calculated AF can explain that data, including the atmospheric increase.

In fact Bugsy is merely restaing the argument used to justify the claim that ACO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2; which is based on the total ACO2 emissions not 40% of them which is the AF. The reason for this is Knorr has included natural variables, ENSO/ocean and Volcanoes.

Anyway, the AF is 40% of the ACO2 emissions. Knorr's cross-checking with the 1850 data means the post 1959 comparison between Knorr's 46% graph and the final 40% graph in the article is correct and ACO2 cannot provide all the CO2 to explain the atmospheric increase.

Sounds like a lot of rubbish to me. What does the 1850 upper atmosphere carbon readings say.

Monday, November 12, 2012
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Nov. 12, 2012) - A research project with its roots at the University of Waterloo has found that human activity is raising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere.
It is the first hard evidence that such levels are increasing there at a faster rate than can be explained by solar activity or exhaust from rocket launches. The project’s CO2 measurements are reported in the latest issue of Nature GeoScience.
In the earth’s atmosphere, CO2 molecules can accumulate energy through collisions with other atmospheric gases and then emit this energy as infrared radiation (heat). Near the earth's surface, CO2 contributes to a heating of the atmosphere, making it a key factor in climate change. However, in the upper atmosphere, some of the infrared radiation emitted by CO2 makes it to space, thereby inducing a cooling of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract. This effect reduces atmospheric drag on low-orbiting satellites and space junk. Objects will stay up longer before plunging to a fiery end deeper in the atmosphere. While it could aggravate the problem of space clutter, it may also reduce the use of fuel-consuming booster rockets required to keep in position large vehicles, such as the International Space Station.

The recent history of atmospheric carbon dioxide

Charles Keeling began precise monthly measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in 1958. He was the first to do so systematically and so his data have come to be known as the "The Keeling Curve." Learn more about Charles Keeling at http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home/index.php The measurements were made at the Mauna Loa Astronomical Observatory which is at the summit of an inactive volcano in Hawaii. Mauna Loa was chosen because it is far from major sources or sinks of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa are a good proxy for the average of the whole Earth.

Now you're just making stuff up cohenite.

Knorr does not say, anywhere, that ACO2 emissions cannot account for the increase in concentrations. Table 1 shows that he uses the airborne fraction calculated for the year 2000, as calculated by Canadell et al. 2007. What Knorr does is calculate that there does not need to be an increase in AF to show the trend, thus arguing that there is no change in the carbon sinks.

Your argument basically relies on the idea that the carbon sinks aren't working and that natural sources are belching carbon into the atmosphere at a rate higher than the sinks can handle. If this is the case, then God help us all, as that is an alarmists worst nightmare.

But rest easy, all is not lost, because you don't know what you are talking about.
Canadell actually defines how the AF is calculated:
AF = (dC a/dt)/(F Foss + F LUC), where dC a/dt is the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (Ca, PgC/y)

That is, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is used to calculate the AF. If the AF is not high enough to explain the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, then something is wrong.

I know what it is, do you?

Knorr disavows Canadell's previous findings of an increase in the AF and this was the purpose of his paper: to check whether that finding of an increase in the rate of the AF was correct; it wasn't.

He also uses a different method of calculating the AF to what Canadell did, as I'm sure you know which would mean you do know what you are talking about but are fibbing. Knorr does show, as one of his options, version 7, a result similar to Canadell but it is not the preferred version.

Anyway, the sinks must be increasing to maintain the constant AF; which is strange since a warming ocean should be a net emitter; but being a net emitter doesn't preclude being an increasing sink.

My argument DOESN'T depend on sinks not working, which apart from being wrong is really an irritating thing to say, assuming you do know what you are talking about. My argument is that a constant AF, as defined as the amount of ACO2 left in the atmosphere after reabsorption by the sinks, which must be increasing, is insufficient to produce the increase in the atmospheric CO2.

I agree that is not Knorr's conclusion but it is supported by his conclusion and well demonstrated by Figure 3.

This is gibberish:

"What Knorr does is calculate that there does not need to be an increase in AF to show the trend, thus arguing that there is no change in the carbon sinks."

Just go back to basics; what is the AF? Is it ALL the ACO2? Is it more or less than the increase in atmospheric CO2