Again warmair just another bunch of unsupported assertions. Supply me with links that support these and I'll read them.

Be careful though, remember how ant has been silenced.

A study was done by Grant Foster1 and Stefan Rahmstorf2 which broadly confirm my points above

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

The results are sumerised on this graph
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f7_online.jpg

MEI refers to La Nina and El Nino cycles
AOD refers to Aerosol Optical Depth
TSI is Total Solar Index

My conclusion is that temperatures should have fallen by about 0.15 deg C since around 2003 instead they have continued to climb.

They conclude Quote
"This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation."
And
"Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal"

I read the first page of your reference with the following words liberally scatter I started to doubt it's scientific method.

'approximated',
'the expected climate evolution'
'regularly estimate global and regional (including hemispheric) average temperature'
'Surface temperature is estimated'
'Lower-troposphere (LT) temperature is estimated'

But when I read the following I burst out laughing. So much estimation isn't the scientific method in operation it is just plain guesswork.

I didn't bother reading any further.

'Each science team adopts different methods for correcting input data for non-climatic influence. Different surface temperature estimates begin with much of the same raw data, but must be corrected for such factors as station moves, time-of-observation bias, and the ‘urban heat island’, or UHI, effect. For satellite data sets, creation of
a lower-troposphere record requires combining information
from multiple MSU/AMSU channels, since no single channel
represents the lower troposphere exclusively (in fact they
are all influenced by the entire atmosphere, including the
stratosphere). Other complications with satellite data include
the uncertain effects of orbital decay (and disagreement
between teams about how best to correct it), and the necessity
of splicing together data from over a dozen satellite missions
(with further disagreement between teams about how to do
so), each with its own calibration issues. Instrumentation has
evolved over time, most notably the switch from MSU to
AMSU technology with the launch of NOAA-15 in 1998.
Clearly, no single data record, surface or satellite, is free of
complications and uncertainties.
For the most part, the complications which affect
surface and satellite records are mutually exclusive—for
instance, satellite data are free from contamination due to
UHI—although surface and satellite data are not estimates of
exactly the same physical quantity. Yet the lower-troposphere
and near-surface temperatures are coupled strongly enough,
especially on longer times scales, that a comparison between
them provides useful insights.'

you have got to be joking if you expect any reasonable person to take this guesswork seriously.

"This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation."
And
"Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal"

If the following statement was added to both conclusions:

"if you accept all out estimations, expectations and approximations as well as 'our different methods for correcting input data'..."

it would make your and their conclusions a tad more honest and upfront... not to mention laughable.

cohenite, what I wrote was exactly the correct interpretation of what the airborne fraction is. It is identical to how Knorr defines the airborne fraction in the first two sentences of the introduction to his paper. I am tempted to suggest you should read the paper, rather than making things up.

What Knorr’s argument is all about is why hasn’t the airborne fraction increased and whether the predictions of the models of an increase in the fraction are likely to be realised.

The fact that the airborne fraction has been remarkably constant says nothing at all about natural emissions. In fact it is weird to suggest that it does. A constant AF indicates that the amount of CO2 going into sinks is increasing. That is all. Increasing natural emissions would in fact increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and increase the AF.

A constant AF is not in fact much of a surprise. There are two major sinks: plants and the ocean. Both will increase their absorption of CO2 as more is added to the atmosphere. Plants are inherently inefficient at fixing CO2 from the small concentration in the atmosphere. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, plants will fix CO2 more efficiently, the so-called fertilization effect. It is a limited effect, because biomass increase will be limited by nitrogen.

For the ocean, an equilibrium exists between the ocean and the atmosphere. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere shifts the equilibrium so that more CO2 enters the ocean. These two processes explain entirely why the AF has not changed.

imajulianutter, there is not currently a pause in temperature increases. There have been statistically significant increases in surface temperatures since 1997, 1998 or 1999. There has statistically been a pause since 2010, if that helps any. But I guess that is just those terrorists fiddling with the data again.

Imajulianutter
Here are a few of your recent comments

"Really then since co2 emissions are still increasing why aren't temps still rising. And why are the IPCC downgrading their predictions re future rises?"
"So explain the current pause in temps while co2 is still increasing."

But in the last couple of posts it appears you do not accept the estimates for global temperatures, so you can not reasonably argue from the same estimates that temperatures have not risen, or to put it bluntly you believe that temperatures have not risen based guesswork.

I would also point out the words like approximations and estimates do not necessarily indicate lack of accuracy.
For example the value of pie is approximately but not exactly.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
Also I would hope that when you estimate your position out at sea that you have a fairly accurate idea of where you are.