04-26-2017, 04:14 AM
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.