CO2 trend not confounded by volcano, see results from other CO2 measurement sites

Since deniers don’t trust scientists to be careful, which they are on Mauna Loa, let’s just  throw out the Mauna Loa data for the sake of argument…  “There are dozens of other sampling stations scattered all over the globe, including one in the Antarctic, far from cities, SUVs, cement plants, and active volcanoes. It also shows the same rise [PDF], though the southern hemisphere tends to lag a few years behind the northern hemisphere, where the majority of the CO2 is produced. Here are eight others — same results.

Sorry, its all of us Joes, not the volcanoes.” – Grist


6 Responses to “CO2 trend not confounded by volcano, see results from other CO2 measurement sites”

  1. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, you miss the point on this one. I have stated many many many times on this blog and in my presentation that CO2 is a constant. It is 380ppm at sea level, 1 mile high, the North Pole, South Pole and Equator. There is an even blanket of CO2 surrounding the globe. My comments were about combining direct measurements of CO2 using the flask on Mauna Loa with proxy data from Antarctica. My point was why don’t they use a consistent measuring methodology? Facts are, when you use direct measurements going all the way back, the CO2 chart looks nothing like the smooth graph generate by pecing together the two disimilar data sets of Mauna Loa and ice core. Here is a chart showing all 3 methods, and you can see a complete history of direct mesurements looks nothing like the ice core. The question for you and the IPCC scientists is why do you piecemeal two data sets together insead of simply using the more accurate direct measurement data? Reason. The computer models don’t show warming due to CO2, so you have to cherry pick and mix data sets to make your point. Here is the chart, anyone can see the result of any computer model depends on what data set you choose, and the IPCC chooses to use a bogus combination of ice cores and direct samples. Everyone knows they should simply use the direct measurements going back as far as they can.

  2. Robert Wagner Says:

    Here is a chart showing how they literally shift the data to make the line fit. I have seen similar shifts of over 200 years. I understand that ice age and air age is different, but why then do the shifts vari all over the place, and they all align perfectly with the Mauana loa data? What a coincidence.

  3. Robert Wagner Says:

    “Sorry, its all of us Joes, not the volcanoes.” – Grist”

    Does this guy have a clue as to the carbon cycle? Man produces less than 5% of atmospheric CO2. The annual variation is almost that large.

  4. Robert Wagner Says:

    Believe it or not, trees breathing, yes, trees breathing create almost 10x the CO2 man does. Facts are, man is a small drop in a huge ocean.

  5. Polar.Mike Says:

    I think the referrals to the websites above highlight a problem, “an englishmans castle” is surely not a well known bastion of rigorous, skeptical, peer reviewed science. Try citing something that is not a blog, or an opinion piece. Try citing current academic papers to back up your arguments. Try actually putting diagrams and information into context. Your arguments are a house of cards as far as I can see.

  6. Todd Albert Says:

    Ah, Dr. Wagner, you finally hit something: trees “breathing” (I will take that as photosynthesizing) has a larger annual effect on CO2 than man. Yes, and the more we cut down trees, and burn fossil fuels, the less and less this is true. The fact is that while the annual cycle of CO2 from vegetation is larger than the ANNUAL trend in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels, there is still a discernible increase from one year to the next. Yup, that’s us. We’re doing it.

    And, Dr. Wagner, the question that you pose about why don’t we use consistent measurements of CO2… since 1957, our BEST CO2 record is from Mauna Loa. Before that, we must turn to the paleoclimate record. How do you propose we get “flask” measurements of CO2 from Mauna Loa that extend back 800,000 years? A time machine?

    Again, stick to what your trained in. (Or do you think I should start practicing medicine, just because I have a Ph.D?)

    Increasingly bored with you,
    Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist

Leave a Reply