Yes I say that site --it was one of the first I came upon--but on a cursory reading it waffles/side-steps the issue talking about absorption rates etc.

How about a simple/clear/direct percentage break-up!

SPQR,

Just how "simple" do you wish to make climate out to be?

Absorption rates are integral to the system and, therefore, to its study.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=384

Poirot,

Here’s my question (again): what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist (in my first links) says 3.225%.

You give me two links:
Your first –which purports to answer my question-- is headed: “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”

And, your second -- which purports to answer my question-- Is headed: “ What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?”

For God sake!

We know all that –we have heard it all a million times –we might even agree with it!
BUT it does not address my question—what PERCENTAGE of CO2 is anthropogenic?

If you were ravishingly hungry and asked me what percentage of the big tasty meat (or, perhaps, in your case halal vegan) pie on the table you could eat --- you wouldn’t want me to go yabbering on about how the pie was made!

SPQR,

You're not going to suck me into playing little games.

We know that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny percentage of the overall CO2 emitted(reabsorbed, etc).

The issue here is how much extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources outside the natural carbon cycle.

Carry on being pedantic about your bloody graph - as if the whole issue is static....

I'm not falling for it : )

Further reading - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-CO2-emissions-to-CO2-levels.html

SPQR
According to your link
Note these figures are claimed to come from the year 2000
level co2 Pre-industrial 288,000 Ppb
Natural additions 68,520
Man-made additions 11,880
present level 368,400

On those figures we arrive at your figure of 3.2%.

In other words the site is claiming that of the increase in CO2 levels, since pre industrial times, the natural increase is 6 times greater than the the contributions from man made sources, frankly this is a ridiculous claim, but nevertheless lets have a look at it.
The most obvious questions are where did this supposedly natural increase come from ? Can we find a natural source for this massive increase in atmospheric CO2 ? about the only remote possibility is from volcanoes, but it is clear that this source is totally inadequate. According to the best information I can find volcanic emission's are at most 1% of of human emission’s annually. The next possibility is the out-gassing from the ocean, this does not work as Co2 in the surface layers of the ocean are also increasing whereas the deeper layers are not. in other words the Co2 is coming from the atmosphere not the other way round.

Can we account for the increase in Co2 levels by adding up the amount of CO2 generated by man"s activities. The figures are clear we have produced more than twice the amount necessary to account for the total increase in atmospheric levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

The responses from qanda and Poirot yesterday were instructive.

Poor Poirot, who bases much of her beliefs on the meme that sceptic scientists are in the pay of big business, was presented with evidence that business was indeed surreptitiously supporting pro-AGW groups. Her response was to completely ignore the information, calling it bunkum beneath her consideration. She reminds me a fundamentalist christian presented with evidence that the world is more than 6000 yrs old - she doesn't want it to be true and therefore assumes it isn't true.

qanda is equally perplexed. He can't work out how it is I quote approvingly from an avowed consensus scientist (Rahmstorf) and assumes it because " he just doesn't get it".

By "it" he means the notion of picking a side. For the religiously committed in this issue, its all about picking a side. Then having done so, you only read information from the approved gurus, treating everything else as inherently wrong. This is why qanda is confused by a sceptic reading Rahmstorf, let alone agreeing with Rahmstorf. Its entirely alien to the way qanda thinks.

For qanda/Poirot, the argument is over. But they still have to find some face-saving way of ignoring all the contrary data coming out of non-consensus scientists. The approved method is to assert there is a massive disinformation campaign by business and all this contrary data is funded and paid for. They don't actually know to be actually true that because, as per above, they don't look at the data but it is their standard MO so ingrained that they probably don't even know they're doing it.

This is why people like Lomborg are so difficult for the warmists to understand. Someone who doesn't buy the myth but is clearly not in the pay of big whatever - they can't work out a face-saving way to ignore him.

So a little tip for our jihadist warmists - worry about the data and ignore the source. Don't ignore data because it doesn't fit the prejudices and don't blindly accept data from the approved gurus.