Co2 levels reach 410 ppm.

[kalakoa]

The "global warming" meme is inaccurate, it's really "climate change", which means more extremes.

Consider the recent hurricanes, and the current "dry spring" trend.

[Eric1600]

quote:

---

Originally posted by terracore

I have read them, and for the most part I am a firm believer in the scientific method.

"Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995). "

Whenever the media lists the "highest co2 concentrations ever recorded" it's always on Mauna Kea. Who is doing the peer-review on the Mauna Kea data that is kept versus the obvious "influence from the volcano" data that is "edited"?

Is it impossible that Co2 levels exist somewhere between "obvious" and "not obvious" influence from the volcano?

---

I think you meant Mauna Loa, not Mauna Kea.

The measurements on Mauna Loa has been one of the most tested and compared methods and procedures since the original equipment was designed and built up there in 1958. It is compared to other baselines constantly. CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trends.

High precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 made by the Scripps CO2 Program and other organizations show that its average global concentration in 2006 was more than 381 ppm; about 70 ppm higher than the first direct atmospheric measurements made in the 1950s. Records from Mauna Loa and the South Pole show nearly the same rate of rise over time; demonstrating that the rise is global in extent

The "editing" of local events is easy to spot in the data and correlate with other global stations.

If one looks at the minute-by-minute data from Mauna Loa, one finds rare occasions when the CO2 is elevated from emissions from fumaroles upwind on the mountain. The fumaroles are emitting constantly, so the timing of the events depends on wind direction and not changes in volcanic activity. These events impact only a tiny faction of the data and are easily distinguished from rest of the record. The reported version of the Mauna Loa record has been “filtered” to remove these events, as well as other certain other local effects, as described in the early publications (see Keeling 1960 Tellus paper). http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/public...s_1960.pdf

The reason why it's acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year) which is measured by 100's of sources around the planet.

[Eric1600]

CO2 up to 410, huh? Then why isn't the temperature increasing? I thought that CO2 was the magic knob controlling everything?

There is not a direct time correlation between increase in CO2 ppm and measureable heat.

Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...0/3/031001

and

Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years. We evaluate uncertainties in timing and amount of warming, partitioning them into three contributing factors: carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and ocean thermal inertia. If uncertainty in any one factor is reduced to zero without reducing uncertainty in the other factors, the majority of overall uncertainty remains. Thus, narrowing uncertainty in century-scale warming depends on narrowing uncertainty in all contributing factors. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108.../12/124002

[riversnout]

So the carbon that entered the atmosphere from 6.6-30.7 years ago is still failing to warm it?

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbo...ll-it-can/

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

why isn't the temperature increasing?

riversnout,
If you don't think the climate is getting warmer, ask the people who's living depends on a specific range of temperatures to grow their crops, such as the lettuce farmers from Waimea who I've spoken to. They're changing the varieties they grow in order to stay in business.

[Rob Tucker]

If we can't keep this Hawaii and its to be a general debate on climate change I will have to lock this up.

That doesn't mean I don't have my own opinions. It means that Punaweb is a place to specifically discuss Hawaii and Puna.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[dmbwest]

Aloha Rob,

I was beginning to think you were on vacation. : )

[Eric1600]

quote:

---

Originally posted by riversnout

So the carbon that entered the atmosphere from 6.6-30.7 years ago is still failing to warm it?

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbo...ll-it-can/

---

Sorry Rob, but postings from the "Skeptic's Handbook" should be addressed. I haven't see those myths trotted out in a while. Joanne Nova has a BS in microbiology and has spent most of her time hocking pseudo-science based on simplified understanding of climate science.

The idea of CO2 saturation is wrong.
Short version: https://www.skepticalscience.com/saturat...effect.htm
Long Version: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...-argument/

We experience this "unsaturated event" every time the sun goes down and the temperature in Hawaii drops by 5-10 degrees.

As far as how this effects us:

* Higher average temperatures, stressing native animals and plants and causing an uptick in heat-related illnesses in people (think dengue fever or cholera), as well as a higher concentration of invasive species;
* A decrease in trade winds, which would disrupt the rainfall patterns across each of the islands and create periods of drought and heavy rain and flooding;
* Warmer oceans and higher ocean acidity, which could trigger massive coral bleaching, marine migration, and affect the ocean’s circulation and the way it distributes nutrients.

From 44 page report specific to Hawaii: http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/sites/d...change.pdf

You can also find specific information about the Pacific Islands here: https://pirca.org/ and talk with them to express your skepticism and they occasionally hold town hall style meetings. And they have a new Hawaii fact sheet that discusses the estimates made on local scales for our little islands https://pacificislandsclimate.files.word...ands-3.pdf

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Animated graph of CO2 measurements on Mauna Loa, South Pole, and other locations from Jan 1979 to the present. Then watch it rewind back to 800,000 years ago.

It's good to make the comparison between then and now, to provide some perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=232&v=gH6fQh9eAQE