I know that Knorr doesn't conclude that the AF is increasing, but that's not the point.

The AF is the fraction of estimated emissions left over after natural influences are removed.

The growth rate in CO2 concentration is used to calculate the AF. If Knorr uses a different method of calculating it which does not involve the observed increase in atmospheric CO2, then please point out the paragraph in the methods where he does so.

The clue here is in the first line of the results:
"The simplest model of the atmospheric growth rate is
one of a constant AF and yields f = 0.43 [i.e. NOT 40%] when fitted to all data. How well this simple model reproduces the observations at the multi-decadal time scale is shown in Figure 1."

Figure 1 shows the AF= 43% easily explaining the increase in atmospheric concentration, in fact it's the simplest explanation.
There must be something wrong with your estimated emissions data in your final figure (you know, the one plotted by Ian Hill with no source information), as it does not match that used by Knorr. Using the same data is necessary, as Knorr calculated his AF from that dataset, using a different dataset will yield a different AF!

If the oceans are a net emitter of CO2, then the tipping point has already occurred, and we're all screwed (some more than others, obviously).

Knorr says "about 40%... 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero."

That is, 40% is a valid AF figure. Dr Knorr has confirmed that.

Knorr does relate to the increase in atmospheric CO2 because it is one of the factors/data; I said that. Where he differs from Canadell is:

"(Canadell's) analysis accounted only for the error inherent in the linear model, not for uncertainties in either the emissions or the atmospheric growth rate."

Knorr accounted for that in type and extent of data.

Anyway, your fundamental gripe is that because AF is derived from CO2 [as well as other factors!] then the AF can readily explain the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Give me strength!

Your view ignores that AF is less than ALL CO2 emissions; AND as Ian Hill's excellent graph shows, has a trend slope less than the increase in amospheric CO2 increase.

How then can a constant AF of ~40% which is less in every way then the atmospheric increase be responsible for all that atmospheric increase?

Noting that I have not denied that ACO2 is contributing to the atmospheric increase.

Because Ian Hills emissions data is far less than Knorr emissions data. You can see it. Have a look.

40% of 8 is bound to be less than 40% of 10. Der.

You've got a statistical artefact there pal, not very significant.

Bugsy, cohenite, 579

Was locked out of the site by server error, but anyway cohenite, sorry but the theoretical absorbtion half life of CO2 under the present orthodoxy is decades.. (I agree four is probably closer, but its pointless to argue).. so the present sequence is half the industrial CO2 is absorbed and the rest hangs around for decades. If you think that sounds odd there's no point complaining to me, that's the existing theory.

The article talks about a radical departure from that orthodoxy. As I pointed out you can't throw the orthodoxy to one side in this case without giving good explanation or everyone gets confused, which is what seems to have happened. The AF stuff has confused everyone (even me).

Bugsy and Cohenite
No - whether you agree or not with the AFR business, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere should be accelerating under the orthodoxy but they're not - the increase is linear.. so what's happening? How can you or the scientists explain that? At the least there must by other factors at work so what are they?

579
The business about oceans and CO2 content has been kicked around a lot. Warm oceans, such as we have now, should mean high CO2 content in the atmosphere. The global warmers are arguing that the high CO2 content came first and is driving the heat (or creating a feedback that drives the heat). As I noted before, that theory is well entrenched and will remain that way until (if and when) CO2 levels start to go down of their own accord. I wasn't stating as a fact that they would.. I was pointing out what would happen if they did..

You are wrong Bugsy; Ian’s graph is based on data to do with human emissions of CO2 and the atmospheric increase; that data is sourced from the Mauna Loa record, and records of ACO2 emissions:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

The AF line in Ian’s graph is simply 40% of the ACO2 emissions graph which as I say is based on the official data; check yourself.

As to a difference with Knorr, have your eyes tested.

This:

“40% of 8 is bound to be less than 40% of 10”

Is hilarious; but seriously, 40% is always less than 100% which is much more to the point.

Where I think you are going wrong is confusing the AF in terms of the atmospheric increase when it is 40% of the ACO2 emissions. Your sterling work in discovering Knorr derived the AF from, in part, the atmospheric increase has probably stuck in your mind.

But thanks for coming and making me check my facts and generating a good albeit spurious argument; much better than the usual declarations from ‘scientists’ who drop in from time to time.

Curmudgeon, ½ lives, you say:

“The article talks about a radical departure from that orthodoxy”

Not really; the AF, and this is where Bugsy is misleading, is an increasing amount in real terms; it must be because it is a constant 40% of an increasing amount of human emissions, ACO2.

The orthodox view says that even if ACO2 stopped increasing and CO2 increase ended the CO2 already in the atmosphere would stay there for a century. This is problematic:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

But that is a different issue. This article simply looks at how and from what source the atmospheric CO2 increases.

The orthodox view is that ALL the increase is from ACO2; both Knorr’s and Ian Hill’s graphs, despite Bugsy’s super-vision spotting discrepancies, show that is impossible.

That is the point of the article.

Finally I note Hansen says temps have been flat for a decade due to natural variation and reduced AGW forcing. How can AGW forcing be reduced when CO2 is still increasing?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012

cohenite,

I thought you regarded Hansen as a "loon".

Doing a bit of cherry-picking are we?

Here's some reading material.

http://theconversation.edu.au/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628