[tcostell]

Also, to clarify my other post a bit... when I say that a natural non linear system is prone to mean reversion what I mean is, the current high carbon count could be due to any number of things which haven't been considered. Carbon isn't equally distributed in a smooth and consistent way around the planet, so the high number could be a perfectly normal part of fluctuation due to issues in the measurement process.

That isn't saying that the measurements have been tampered with at all, only that if you continue to take them in the same way for the next 1100 years or so, you might also have a naturally occurring low point in the data as well which will smooth out the current high point.

It's the difference between reasonable conjecture and evidence.

[palmer]

Sorry, didn't see that post before I jumped on the last one. I agree and would add: watch out for the measurements of recent ice cores juxtaposed on old ones. Slicing new snow and ice yields considerably more granularity than slicing old ones. There's no doubt CO2 is rising in the peak that it is now, some component of which is man-made. Both direct readings and recent cores show this. But that does not mean that old ice core measurements can be used for a conclusion of flat CO2.