M4GW

The reason they use the Mauna Loa chart is because it is the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, plus it has steadily increased every year except maybe this year.(The zig-zagging up and down are the seasons of the year). Some think with the recent La Nina and the cooling of the Pacific, that this year the increase might reverse or at least slow down.

My concern is that, CO2 levels, just like temperature, vary dramatically around the globe and yet we use just one station to measure it, but we use many stations to measure temperature. And it is my contention that measuring CO2 from on top a volcanic mountian in Hawaii skews the data in favor of Al Gore.

If you wanted to measure man's impact on global CO2 wouldn't you put the measuring station out in the middle of Nebraska or Arizona or someplace like that far away from any natural occuring CO2?

Often I've wondered why so much attention is used to look at temperature around the globe but not CO2? Then yesterday on "Future Tense" I head about something called the "Vulcan Project" where scientist form Purdue University and other places have developed a way to look at CO2 emissions 100 times more acuratlly.

It is a very dramatic look at CO2 and shows how it varies from place to place. Unfortunately this only measures manmade CO2, which is just a fraction of what nature cranks out, and I don't know if they use any actual measurments of CO2 or just computer models. Plus, I hope they take into account plant absorption of CO2. I think a better way to measure CO2 globally would be to put a CO2 measuring device in every weather station.