On 24 Feb, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:
Harold Brooks wrote:
In article ,
says...
Is this a mis-print do you think? .....

" So if European leaders want to tell me that 2 ppm increase in a
trace gas ( that is 2 parts per million) is worth destroying mans
advance in lifestyle, (etc.) "

The CO2 global level in the early 1800s is put at around 280 ppmv,
and most researchers regard that (based on ice core studies) as
having been a stable figure for many centuries (millennia?)
beforehand - though of course a great distance back in time, much
higher levels of CO2 have been described.

In 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa record, the figure is ~315 ppmv
(parts per million by volume).

In 2000, the figure is ~367 ppmv

Latest figure is ~385 ppmv.

I make that an increase from roughly 'pre-industrial' of 105 ppmv
(+37%), and within the internally consistent Mauna Loa record, an
increase of (385-315 =) 70 ppmv, or ~22% over the past half-century.
Or have I mis-interpreted the original article?

Martin.

You interpreted Joe's article correctly. *It appears that, shockingly,
Joe either completely made something up or made a large error.

Harold

Perhaps it was a *stupid* mistake? :-)

Will

Perhaps he's just stupid - or more likely simply a complete con -
quite a succesful one admittedly. He's forever quoting misinformation
(lies?) like that. (Not being paid by an oil company is he?)

Graham
Penzance