Actually, no cohenite, the point does not stand.

F-LUC is not 25% of F, it is 1.5Gt/y and has been remarkably stable for more than 50 years. It is estimated here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf+html

That means that your 'AF' trend line is out by about 0.6Gt/y, which looks about right.

But by all means, try and defend it to the death, Black cohenKnight.

Knorr found that Canadell et al was wrong about an increasing AF. That’s what he found, isn’t it Bugsy?

Canadell’s quantification of LUC at [a constant] 1.5Gt is about the same as found by the IPCC, 1.6Gt, and shown in Figure 7.3 as linked to above. That’s right too, isn’t it Bugsy?

1.6Gt is 25% of the fossil emissions at 6.4Gt; that’s true too, isn’t it Bugsy?

THEREFORE the top and bottom lines in Ian’s graph would need to be adjusted up by 25%. That would still put the constant AF BELOW the atmospheric increase.

Anyway, even you can see even Knorr’s AF is often below the atmospheric increase.

Basically, Bugs, you are disagreeing with Knorr’s finding of a constant AF, aren’t you?

No, cohenite, I am not disagreeing with Knorr's finding of a constant AF, no matter how much you misrepresent me.

What you have done is misrepresent what Knorr calculated and applied it incorrectly.

Yes, the IPCC figure shows 1.6Gt, for the 1990s (see the Figure legend), which is what Canadell also states. If it is 25% of the average emissions for the 1990s, then fine. What it isn't, is 25% of emissions for the 1950s, 1960s etc.

If Knorr found that the AF was not increasing, then so be it, that is probably true. It's a fine point and best left to the real climate scientists to debate its significance.

What isn't true is your misapplication of misunderstood calculations using one set of data on a different set of data. This has led to a grievously erroneous conclusion. It doesn't help matters by defending yourself with weak, erroneous arguments that only serve to display your biases against the truth.

That's not science, that religion, remember?

1. the AF figure is not a steady, year by year, constant. It varies a lot in the short term, and this is mentioned in several papers, including Canadell & Ors, which cohenite refers to (but appears not have read properly):

"The AF has a large interannual variability and has ranged from 0.0 to 0.8 since 1959 (Fig. 2 A). This variability is mainly due to the responses of natural sinks, particularly land sinks (Fig. 1 B), to interannual climate variability (e.g., from El Niño/Southern Oscillation) and volcanic eruptions (10)."

It seems cohenite has mistakenly concluded that Knorr meant that the AF was a steady, year by year figure.

2. cohenite seemingly refuses to believe that the his "principle of a constant in an increasing total" arguments only makes internal sense if AF is (mistakenly) taken to refer to the atmosphere overall, not just human emitted CO2. Other people in this thread have tried to point this out to him, he appears to simply refuse to believe it.

3. Yesterday I emailed Knorr and pointed out the arguments which cohenite was trying to derive from his AF paper. With his permission, I can quote his preliminary comments:

"The roughly 40-50% are a long-term average, correct. There are big
deviations at the interannual, even 20-30year time frame.
I'm on my way out right now, I am afraid, I could look a this in about a week.

What puzzles me: if 40-50% of man-made emissions stay in the
atmosphere after account for the balance of the natural fluxes, and
the CO2 increase is consistent with just that increase (both are shown
in the articlel), then clearly man is responsible for that rise in CO2
levels. So how could he arrive at the conclusion that man is only
partially responsible?"

I think we have every reason to expect that Knorr will be very unimpressed when he reads the whole article.

Contrary to what steve from brisbane [SfB] implies I have specifically said that Knorr does not deal with whether ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2 increase. Dr Knorr confirmed that a figure of 40% for the AF was reasonable and that is all that has been attributed to him.

My take on Knorr is what I have stated; that a constant AF is less than the atmospheric CO2 increase.

The interannual variability which SfB mentions is plain from Knorr's Figure 1 which is in the article.

When Dr Knorr reads the blasphemous article I hope he addresses that point; which is, in many years the atmospheric increase is GREATER than the AF. If the AF is less than the atmospheric increase it doesn't matter what the sinks are doing; natural CO2 emissions must be contributing.

SfB can email God if he likes on that point but I'm afraid I'll still believe my eyes.

Anyway good old Bugsy did have a point and Quirk's graph only deals with F not LUC. So, as I explained, with LUC, according to the IPCC, 25% of F that would mean the AF and total ACO2 emissions lines in Ian's graph will have to be moved upwards by 25%.

Bugsy's observation that the 25% adjustment would only apply to the 90's appears to be a red herring since even his Canadell says LUC is relatively unchanging; ie:

"Model-based estimates of emissions from land-use change (FLUC) remained approximately constant from 1959 to 2006,
averaging 1.5 0.5 PgC y1."

When the 25% adjustment is made the trend line for the AF [which accounts for interannual variability] becomes y=0.0559x + 1.2784, which is still less than atmospheric increase of CO2 of y=0.0575x + 1.5876; and total ACO2 emissions also moves up accordingly, as do the Gt amounts.

I will ask Graham to replace Ian's graph with the new one.

For what is likely to not be the last time, the 'adjustment' i for F-LUC is NOT 25%! FFS

It's +1.5Gt/y. It's been a realtively constant 1.5Gt for decades, not a 'constant ' 25%.

For example, at the start of Ian's Graph, for the year 1959, 1.5Gt/2.5=0.6, or an needed adjustment of 60%!, you are out 60%!

Looking at it another way, a 25% 'adjustment' for 2.5Gt would be only a 0.625Gt/yr adjustment for 1959, and that is clearly wrong. in fact it would only apply to those total emissions values that are 4x the F-LUC value, i.e 1990s, the rest would be in error.

Just add 1.5Gt/y to each of the datatpoints on Ians Graph, not 25%. Then we'll see, eh?

If you don't, then you will have proved that you aren't just wrong, you will be deliberately lying to defend yourself.

It's poor old Bob the mountain climbing electrical engineer that I feel sorry for, I don't think he knows who he's gotten mixed up with.