In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
Don Klipstein ) writes:
In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
"HeyBub" ) writes:

SNIP to here

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again,
so what.

If a person with a CO2 gas analyser measures 350 ppm, it would be a fluke.
It's the same typo... damn i mean type off... damn i mean type of fluke
as going to the grocery store and filling the cart, and then running it
through the cash, and the register displays exactly $35.00, not $34.73,
$35.18 etc.. 350 is a rounded number. Do I need to tell you which direction
it's rounded!

SNIP from here

Latest reading is 391.4 ppm. I got this from www.wattsupwiththat.com,
a site widely considered skeptical of manmade global warming.

Who took the measurement Snippy? Who made the gas analyser?
What's its error tolerance? How many measurement
were taken to get that average number? Where and when were they taken?

Determination was done by the Mauna Loa observatory.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

How determinations are made, including backup measurements and
replications elsewhere in the world:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/ab...surements.html

They make a decent case that probable error is a fraction of a ppm.

Readings are taken hourly, and on most days a few to several hourly
readings show consistency within a fraction of a ppm during weather
conditions favorable to the air there not being contaminated by
local/nearby ground-level sources and sinks of CO2. An average monthly
determination considers about 414 readings, at average of 13.6 hourly
readings per day not de-considered on basis of showing signs of deviating
significantly from trend due to interaction with local/nearby ground
sources/sinks of CO2. The de-considered readings are still logged and
maintained.

--
- Don Klipstein )