What is the truth about climate scientists base # of 280ppm for CO2 levels?

You are asking religious nuts to believe something that threatens their cult. They clearly aren't willing to do that. Science and facts are something they seem to abhor while they think they cloak themselves in it. You are abolutely correct. Alarmism depends on that sole interpretation of ice core data. Glaciers take hundreds of years generally to form a solid enough fern to hold the gas and the atmospheric gases have various solubilities and mobility. The ice core data may be good for long term less precise CO2 measurement but it isn't going to give you very good data for periods less than 300 years. It is common sense but since it threatens AGW, it is ignored. Plant stomata data isn't explained away. It is ignored. That tells you something about what these people think about actual science.

There is a difference between free air measurements Jeff. Why is it that you believe graphs which meld the two in an obvious attempt to fool the gullible.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Cli...

This shows that Kouwenberg, 2004 showed that plant stomata data indicated a swing of CO2 from 400 to about 260 ppmV in just a few hundred years obviously naturally. This has to be explained. Either the plant stomatas are behaving in some unprecedented way, the data is corrupt, there is a fraud, or CO2 varies more than alarmists are willing to allow for. I think the latter is far more likely. In fact it is obviously so.

climate realist: you're a typical Yank with your head so some distance up your self your can see your breakfast. how are you able to even point out the assaults on the international commerce midsection in a similar sentence because of the fact the 1st international conflict, the super melancholy, the 2d international conflict, the Nazi holocaust, there's a international outdoors the country you comprehend. The flu killed two times as a lot of people after WW1 than the conflict did, yet i think as they weren't in the US it would not count quantity.

Heat islands are always taken into account and those temperature readings are adjust for that effect. But more to the point if you look on any standard plotted weather map you'll see that that there are thousands of reporting stations in isolated areas, not to mention thousands of ships at sea.

Currently the CO2 index is going up by about 1 to 2 ppm per year or 12 to 15ppm per decade. The index today is about 390ppm. At the start of the Industrial Age the reading was 280ppm...a point that was constant for the previous 10,000 plus years. Its gone from 280ppm 390ppm in less than 200 years. ALL of that increase has to do with the burning of fossil fuel and the destruction of forests. To check all this out check out what the United States Navy has to say on this subject. Climate, weather and war fighting at sea is their primary concern.

So let me get this straight, Pat, you're saying that Guy Callendar was cherry-picking based on ice core data that would not be taken until years later? That was certainly very prescient of him.

Maybe that's why there's a consensus among climate scientists--according to you, they can see into the future.

CO2 level is currently 390ppm maybe 394

I am glad that you acknowledge that G. S. Callendar lived. Most "skeptics" seem to thing that Al Gore invented global warming for his movie.

I am sure that you have heard of the urban heat island effect. Carbon dioxide is richer in urban areas than in remote areas.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/urba...

G. S. Callendar rejected measurements from urban areas because of this.

It is easily measured, why don't you try?

Quote from Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) : "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA."

That temperature/CO2 chart looks nothing like Al Gore's dramatic presentation. There was a whole lot a skewing goin on. It just shows that the data don't matter to 'environmentalists'. It is like a fiddle. You can play any old tune on it.

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Also, you can see how easy the 'environmentalists' can discount urban areas then turn around and say these figures have global implications. As if urban areas weren't part of the global scheme.

Facts and data don't mean a thing to them. If a fact fits, they use it. If it doesn't it is trivialized or worse.

If you enjoy going around on details that quickly devolve into "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't", then more power to you. Frankly, there is too little of the data subject to multiple independent verification to qualify as meaningful in the hard predictive sciences that AGW tries to pass itself off as.

And even if the data was absolutely solid, AGW is trying to plot a complex poorly understood chaotic process with an absurdly small number of points.

This is why I usually just say:

"If man-made global warming was taken seriously by its supporters they would advocate genuine solutions such as adding small amounts of iron to the oceans to cause the microscopic plants to multiply and absorb the carbon dioxide back into the biosphere whence it originally came.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil%E2%80%A6

A solution both practical and inexpensive.

Failing that, they would advocate replacing the base load electrical power generation with mass produced nuclear power plants as one of the quickest, cheapest and most effective means of reducing carbon emissions.

If its supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?"

<<This link explains CO2 levels very well :

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climat... >>

Wishful thinking Pat.

Real skeptics would ask these questions whenever they come across a site making wild claims (particularly when the site in question has a rather amateurish design, to put it mildly):

Who the hell is Monte Hieb, the author of the page you link to? What are his qualifications in climate science, in physics? Has he published any peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals? Who does he work for?

A simple Google search (a valuable yet simple tool for real skeptics) give valuable information about Mr Hieb and his peculiar 'science'.

- Mr Monte Hieb is a former chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety;

- he has no climate science qualifications whatsoever;

- he has no published peer-reviewed papers on climate science or related;

Furthermore, much of the data mentioned on his site is either unsourced, cherry-picked, outdated and/or from non peer-reviewed sources (ie, opinion pieces), none of which constitute Good Science.

In 2007 Harvard physicist Russell Seitz called described Mr Hieb's expertise on paleoclimatology as rivaling "the Creation Museum's take on geochronology".

You are linking to bogus science Pat. Worse, you are believing it instantly it seems because you are biased. You WANT it to be true and thus all skepticism is dropped.

Edit @Pat:

<<Anyone who disagrees with climate science is not credible?>>

I did not say that. I merely questioned your linked author's credibility given his lack of climate science credentials.

<<We should accept the climate science from people who have been deceiving (at the least) to promote an agenda of Governmental controls? >>

And who exactly are these, Pat? You are back into 'conspiracy-mode' again, something which happens very often when individuals are losing the scientific argument.

<<We should believe that CO2 is an obnoxious gas causing the planet to warm to unimaginable and destructive temperatures when evidence shows that a warmer climate enriched with CO2 causes better plant growth and makes available more open land to live on?>>

Total nonsense. For starters, you are making the false assumption that real scientists claim that the earth has never been as warm before. Real scientists know very well the importance of CO2 for life on earth as the associated greenhouse effect, the naturally occurring one, has eventually given our planet a relatively stable climate in which all living things (including us humans) have been able to live in and develop over the past thousands of years.

Yet that does not mean that too much CO2 or too little cannot have drastic consequences, particularly if a decrease or an increase happens over a relatively short period of time.

More CO2 ALONE does not lead to better plant growth as you claim. Other ingredients (ie water) is needed too and guess what evaporates more when temperatures are higher?

<<Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist.>>

A much repeated claim yet totally unsupported. How about you provide some evidence to back it up? Lets have some numbers, some names, some examples from 'scientists' who were denied funding.

Edit @ Jimz:

<<This shows that Kouwenberg, 2004 showed that plant stomata data indicated a swing of CO2 from 400 to about 260 ppmV in just a few hundred years obviously naturally. >>

Why don't you have the courtesy to link to the original Kouwenberg 2004 paper instead of to a self-made graph which claims it is based on the paper? A graph hosted at Photobucket, I must add. Jeez, and you want to be taken serious? Let me guess, you copy/pasted the graph from CO2science run by the Idso family and funded by Big Oil and which regularly cherry-picks otherwise legitimate science more often than not totally distorting the actual findings of the quote-mined papers?