[Pretzel Logic]

It's great to worry about Big Brother, but I just don't think this is the issue that is preeminent on my list of things to worry about in that regard. Go get the FED dissolved. They have and will cause way more problems that a carbon tax would. Government is not evil, it's just extremely inefficient. As for your plot about CO2 in the atmosphere, let's look at a longer timescale. Here's a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere that shows the relative stability over the last 1000 years vs the last 100 years.

Something has clearly changed. Ignore the projections. My point is not the projection lines, but that we've broken out to the upside and there's no clear mechanism to cause it to stop going up. We stayed in the 250-300 ppm range for 900 years and now we are at 400. Is private sector going to fund basic research to investigate this? I don't think so. Is it worth researching? Probably not, if you are going to die in the next 50 years. We can start looking into it once the problem is clearer. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's what I'm hearing from the AGW skeptics. If the increase is due to some natural cause, what is it? There's one explanation I've heard. Humans burning stuff. I am open to others, but I haven't heard any, and to say that the increase is a tiny fraction of the total at this point is just not accurate unless the data in this chart is wrong.

Very reasonable questions and concerns based on the limited data that has been presented by the IPCC via ice cores. So, let's look more closely at the data and see if:

1. We have any way to accurately determine the age of the air that's trapped in ice. If so, how accurate is that method, and within a margin of error of how many years?
2. If CO2 at the poles is NORMALLY lower than CO2 in Hawaii -- should we even be comparing the two readings?
3. If the data is open to any degree of interpretation.
4. If ice core data agrees with, or contradicts, available data from other long-term sources.

In other words: Are ice core data, the science behind it, and the people interpreting the data so infallible and objective that we should base our children's futures on this? Or not? (emphasis mine, below):


Stomata are microscopic pores found in leaves and the stem epidermis of plants. They are used for gas exchange. The stomatal density in some C3 plants will vary inversely with the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Stomatal density can be empirically tested and calibrated to CO2 changes over the last 60 years in living plants. The advantage to the stomatal data is that the relationship of the Stomatal Index and atmospheric CO2 can be empirically demonstrated…

When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores…

Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.

Ice cores and GEOCARB provide continuous long-term records; while plant stomata records are discontinuous and limited to fossil stomata that can be accurately aged and calibrated to extant plant taxa. GEOCARB yields a very low frequency record, ice cores have better resolution and stomata can yield very high frequency data. Modern CO2 levels are unspectacular according to GEOCARB, unprecedented according to the ice cores and not anomalous according to plant stomata. So which method provides the most accurate reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2?

The problems with the ice core data are 1) the air-age vs. ice-age delta and 2) the effects of burial depth on gas concentrations.

The age of the layers of ice can be fairly easily and accurately determined. The age of the air trapped in the ice is not so easily or accurately determined. Currently the most common method for aging the air is through the use of “firn densification models” (FDM). Firn is more dense than snow; but less dense than ice. As the layers of snow and ice are buried, they are compressed into firn and then ice. The depth at which the pore space in the firn closes off and traps gas can vary greatly… So the delta between the age of the ice and the age of the air can vary from as little as 30 years to more than 2,000 years.

****

Recent satellite data (NASA AIRS) show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the polar regions are significantly less than in lower latitudes…

   

   


So… The ice core data should be yielding lower CO2 levels than the Mauna Loa Observatory and the plant stomata.

*****

The current “paradigm” says that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~275ppmv to 388ppmv since the mid-1800’s as the result of fossil fuel combustion by humans. Increasing CO2 levels are supposedly warming the planet…

   

However, if we use Moberg’s (2005) non-Hockey Stick reconstruction, the correlation between CO2 and temperature changes a bit…

   

Moberg did a far better job in honoring the low frequency components of the climate signal. Reconstructions like these indicate a far more variable climate over the last 2,000 years than the “Hockey Sticks” do. Moberg also shows that the warm up from the Little Ice Age began in 1600, 260 years before CO2 levels started to rise.

As can be seen below, geologically consistent reconstructions like Moberg and Esper are in far better agreement with “direct” paleotemperature measurements, like Alley’s ice core reconstruction for Central Greenland…

   

*****

CONCLUSIONS

-- Ice core data provide a low-frequency estimate of atmospheric CO2 variations of the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene. However, the ice cores seriously underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels.
-- GEOCARB shows that ice cores underestimate the long-term average Pleistocene CO2 level by 36ppmv.
-- Modern satellite data show that atmospheric CO2 levels in Antarctica are 20 to 30ppmv less than lower latitudes.
-- Plant stomata data show that ice cores do not resolve past decadal and century scale CO2 variations that were of comparable amplitude and frequency to the rise since 1860.

Thus it is concluded that:

-- CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.
-- The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
-- The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
-- The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
-- The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/c...t-stomata/

My own commentary: Again, I am bothered by the fact that the data from the IPCC/NASA is not being presented honestly, evidenced by one simple fact: Mauna Loa CO2 readings are SUPPOSED to be higher than ice core CO2 readings at the poles. Why is that NOT disclosed to the public in these charts? Wouldn't it be far more honest to state that right off the bat? If I can't even trust the IPCC/NASA to honestly disclose a simple fact like that, what exactly can I trust them to do?