I thoroughly recommend a read of this paper by Roy Spencer. He actually uses words like “evidence” and “proof” – words I’ve never seen before in climate science. He claims he’s done it! What do you and your readers think?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2008/12/an-open-challenge-to-climate-modelers-for-2009/

Averaging out aerosols over 29 years will certainly produce a modest annual average impact but the key point is the way these random events have altered the shape of the temperature series. El Chichon and Pinatubo obscure the fact that the temperature series has not been a gradual increase that is consistent with the increase in CO2.

Temperature has consistently demonstrated a sequence of extended plateau punctuated by sudden rises or falls. And these sudden jumps are not consistent with greenhouse theory.

If you notice in the references I gave you ENSO makes an annual difference to the CO2 fluxes. You should also note there is a considerable effort on matters of carbon cycle.

Like this:

“The Global Carbon Project” with heaps of information.

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/about/index.htm

For example, the so-called carbon budget provides graphics claiming to show CO2 flux but they do not post the numbers for CO2, rather, they provide the data for plain Carbon.

We are told that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 2ppm per year over the past decade and I have no issue there. The problem is that 2ppm of CO2 is an expression of parts per million by volume of the atmosphere (one millionth) of which amounts to 5.14Gt (or petagrams) of CO2 and two of them amount to 10.3Gt CO2.

So when Lukes link to the carbon budget expresses CO2 values in terms of plain Carbon they are referring to parts per million by mass. And there is approximately 1.5 ppm/m for each ppm/v. The current atmospheric CO2 level of 385ppm/v amounts to 582ppm/m.

And this is why the quoted 4.1Gt increase in atmospheric carbon did not reconcile with the 10.3Gt figure for 2ppm/v. It was chalk and cheese. Take the questionable 4.1Gt for plain Carbon and multiply it by a factor of 3.66 to convert to CO2 and we get 15Gt which, when divided by 1.5 leaves us with the 10Gt increase indicated by the Mauna Loa series.

The real problem is with years like the 1998 El Nino when there was a 3ppm jump in atmospheric CO2 when human emissions were less than half this amount, with minimal subsequent natural compensations in later years.

So please disregard the immediate above post. The previous ones on the need for trend bands rather than a single trend line still stand. A trend band that measures peak to peak and trough to trough remains the best way to eliminate volatility in a data set

But like most ratbag puedo-sceptics you’ve only quoted natural sinks not sources. You’d be the sort of bloke that would have a finger on the scales at the butcher’s shop eh?

So you go away and come back with the full set of sinks and sources numbers for a simple schema like this
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg

or this http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/jmz28/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif

or this http://www.globe.gov/fsl/eventsimages/CCdiagram-Print.jpg

IPCC UNFCCC does count all manner of sinks – Kyoto doesn’t. If they did recognise thickening – under rules that the gonzos negotiated – the land use and forestry sector would become a net sink. So that would make it not count in the national inventory. And so all the emphasis would go back onto power and transport which are going gang-busters. You can only count tree clearing under Kyoto if the sector is a net source (don’t ask me who negotiates this stuff). It’s probably coz the Euros thought it was a diddle and fiddle by us (and it was).

As for you timber in house being not counted. If you talk to some experts in the field. Doesn’t really matter when you get into a steady state a few years on….

Anyway – where this gets to in the big international negotiations is that all this land use and forestry stuff is regarded as “sus” – so big moves to disallow ALL of it. Just too hard to keep track of – and too many argumentative buggers like you to make happy.

Love the little break down of sources and sinks but you have the accounting skills of a Chimp on viagra. So lets spell this out for you nice and slowly.

An annual increase of atmospheric CO2 of 2 ppm amounts to 10.5Gt.
The gross emissions under IPCC Bull$hit accounting is 9Gt.
And according to the climate mafia only 4.2Gt (46%) remains in the atmosphere.
With landscape absorbing 2.6Gt (29%) and
Oceans absorbing 2.3Gt (25.5%).

But the above percentages are based on the IPCC accounting total emissions of 9Gt, not the 10.5Gt of measured CO2 annual increase. If only 4.2Gt of human CO2 remains in the atmosphere then it follows that this 4.2Gt only represents 40% of the total increase in CO2.

THE OTHER 60% MUST BE OF NATURAL ORIGIN.

And that means that Lean & Rind were even more in error for assuming that all CO2 was human induced when it should have been only 40%.

And that means the 25 year trend band of 0.096C per decade, less the 24% unexplained portion leaving 0.073C decadal trend, and less another 10% for ENSO and Solar leaving 0.0657C must then be multiplied by only 0.4 to get the maximum likely anthropogenic forcing of only 0.0263C per decade.

And remember that IPCC accounting grossly over estimates Land Use emissions while grossly underestimating Land Use absorption. They still regard the wood in your house as being already emitted and refuse to even recognise vegetation thickenning.

So lets state that again. The actual decadal warming due to human CO2 emissions is unlikely to be more than 0.026C which is only 1/6th of the 0.154C claimed by the CO2 Flux Klan.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24900863-5018012,00.html

Now toddle off and fart in that jar! Pahleeeze…..

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/ppt/GCP_CarbonBudget_2007.ppt

Anthropogenic and biophysical contributions to increasing
atmospheric CO2 growth rate and airborne fraction
M. R. Raupach1, J. G. Canadell1, and C. Le Qu´er´e2,3
1Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, Australia
2School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
3British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK

November 2008

http://www.biogeosciences.net/5/1601/2008/bg-5-1601-2008.pdf

The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y −1. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate have been ≈65 ± 16% from increasing global economic activity, 17 ± 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18 ± 15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate–carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full