There is something dramatically wrong with the Mauna Loa CO2 graphs. There were thousands of CO2 measurements taken before 1960 that showed CO2 levels moving all over the place, with several periods having levels higher than now.
But all of that data was conveniently thrown out being that it didn't support the AGW agenda. Now out of Mauan Loa we get this nice smooth ever progressing upward graph of CO2. It was never like that before, very strange indeed.
Look about 3/4's of the way down this page (figure 2) to see the old measurements and graphs and you will see, something's wrong with Mauna Loa measurements.
http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-be...
Now watch this nice lady demonstrate in crystal clear terms how little CO2 humans contribute to the air. All in a short 2 minute video.
The answer, I'm sure, is no, but isn't it a dumb question?
If you wanted to know the state of the tides for the day, you wouldnt use a graph that showed the full depth of the ocean, would you?
Or, if you were a doctor recording a patient's temperature, would the y axis include absolute zero?
Same with the atmosphere. Why would you display the change in something which does have an effect in terms of something which does not?
Probably not. So?
If I put a drop of dye into a gallon of water, I can see the color clearly, even if the dye is only a fraction of a percent of the mass of the water. And, of course, 300 ppm (relative to your body weight) of cyanide or arsenic would probably show up nicely in the tox screen at your autopsy, if you were foolish enough to decide that such a small amount couldn't harm you.
Most of the atmosphere is *not relevant* to the greenhouse effect. It does not block infrared light, so it does not have an effect, just like the water you added a drop of dye to doesn't interact with visible light (at least, not much), so it doesn't have a color.
edit:
Zippi, poisons are just one of the easiest examples of "a little bit of something can make a big difference". You'll also notice that I mentioned dyes, which (often) aren't poisonous.
This is an example of an irrelevant comparison that deniers are so enamored with.
Say we graph your total savings from 0 to 100% as a function of the entire monetary supply on the planet--wouldn't it be indistinguishable from the zero baseline?
If you agree that this is the proper way to compare things, then please send me all your money, since you consider it indistinguishable from nothing.
EDIT: If you really believe your "Additional Details," then you really should send me all your money.
EDIT for Maxx: There is nothing "wrong" with the Mauna Loa measurements--this is one of the lamest of denier arguments. There is a reason everyone has heard of the Keeling Curve--because Charles David Keeling was an extremely careful observational chemist, and knew how to make proper measurements. The reason that a lot of scientific data gets rejected is because it's clearly WRONG. I can go on just about any National Weather Service site and find observational data that is clearly incorrect, however when you do careful analyses you just can't let all the garbage data slip into the analysis, or you'll truly end up with "Garbage In, Garbage Out". That's why quality control is such a huge part of atmospheric science today--there are trillions of bytes of data that must be evaluated daily, so there are automated systems for dealing with questionable data. In the old days an intelligent scientist like Callender might do it "by hand."
Why do you think that it is not shown in such a manner?
Is your point that carbon dioxide is an insignificant trace gas? I thought that it was plant food. If it were an insignificant trace gas, it would not be able to support plant life.
What you say is true (so why ask a "question" that you already know the answer to?), but I would not recommend that you celebrate your "original" insight by drinking a toast with a "miniscule" .04% solution of that valuable additive and medicinal substance, cyanide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide#Med...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide#Tox...
Chem Flunky - We're not talking about a poisonous gas. Why do all of you warmists always bring up poisons?
shown as a 0 to 100% atmospheric graph instead of ppm, would you even be able to see it against the base line?
