4 ms·

There's your problem - Mauna Loa. If those who want to say that CO2 levels are trending up then there is a significant need to have 1000's upon 1000's of monit

There's your problem - Mauna Loa. If those who want to say that CO2 levels are trending up then there is a significant need to have 1000's upon 1000's of monitoring points worldwide. This way the evidence can be gathered to show what is happening around the globe. In addition, with these CO2 monitoring points, we need rainfall information, temperature information, plant growth rate information, vehicle usage, manufacturing and population information. We need volcanic activity information, we need land usage information, we need forest and bush fire information. This data collection is only the tip of the "iceberg" of information we need. Without it, we do not have the evidence profile required to demonstrate what is actually happening around the world. Without that evidence, we are unable to see what needs to be done. When it boils down to it, there are climate change effects that can be mitigated, there are climate change effects that cannot be mitigated. Choosing strategies that are ineffective is, in many cases, worse than doing nothing. Take my country Australia for example, many of the species of plant life depend on drought conditions and the subsequent bush fires for the propagation of the species and regeneration of the land. Increased CO2 levels have a beneficial effect on the plant life by either reducing water consumption or increasing density and growth of plants, so that our tree population increases. Increasing forest coverage increases water retention. Without comprehensive data, we are all blind-sided. There is no level playing field on which we can build the appropriate strategies. For those who say we must do something now, how do you know that what is being proposed won't make things worse?

walrus01 8y ago
There are thousands of co2 monitoring stations worldwide, and they all show the same data. Mauna Loa is a good indicator for global co2 in the atmosphere because its position is exposed to high altitude winds that circulate around the entire Pacific ocean, and it is not near a extremely populated area with a lot of fossil fuel burning that would skew the results. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global Barrow, Alaska, Mauna Loa, Samoa, and the South Pole all show the re same trend. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... We have comprehensive data going back a million years, from deep ice cores.
- cbkeller 8y ago
  Quite right. Geologist here - I know a lot of folks who study climate and paleoclimate, they know what they're doing. If anything I'd say the evidence is even more solid than most well-informed people realize. edit: if anyone wants comprehensive data, a good place to start is with the IPCC reports, particularly the "physical science basis" section: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ This is a few years old now (they're currently working on the "sixth report") but the data was already clear and uncontroversial.
- oldandtired 8y ago
  > Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm. After water vapour has been removed? What is the effect if water vapour is not removed from the figures? Does this show a different profile or is the profile identical? What was the reasoning for removing the water vapour figures from the readings? Simple line graphs like these don't give the kinds of profiles needed. We need much more comprehensive mapping. Looking at the sites mentioned, there does not appear to sufficient coverage of all environmental areas to give us a clear picture of what is going on. My first question is whether or not the measurements are being affected by the local environment profiles - are there other factors we need to know about the areas in which the measurements are taking place? In other words, are there specific site characteristics that effect CO2 measurements that are not applicable elsewhere. For other untested sites, are there site specific characteristics that would show a higher or lower CO2 profile? You note that the high altitude winds that circle the Pacific Ocean are an advantageous factor for Mauna Loa in determining global CO2 levels. My first question relates to what effects does the Ring of Fire have on these readings and my second would be related to what effects does the circulating wind flows have on these readings. Just looking at the displayed data leaves me with lots of unanswered questions. These are questions that can only be answered by having CO2 monitoring stations located in 1000's upon 1000's of different locations: islands, remote sea buoys, mountain ranges, savannahs, forests, high plains, low plains, continuously circling weather balloons, coastal and internal land mass locations, cities, farming communities, deserts and arid land locations, tropical, sub-tropical, temperate zones. We also need all the other data that will give us a handle on what is happening. For ocean locations, are there dissolved CO2 levels that are affected by changing temperature profiles and is there a atmospheric and ocean transfer of CO2 that affects the readings? Does the plankton population levels change the CO2 levels, is there feedback loops here - positive or negative? There are many more measurements that can be undertaken to give us a better understanding of what is happening. The complexity is very high and we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields to get the information required. As I said, we need comprehensive data to be able to determine what strategies are going to be useful and what will be of no use whatsoever.

walrus01 8y ago

There are thousands of co2 monitoring stations worldwide, and they all show the same data. Mauna Loa is a good indicator for global co2 in the atmosphere because its position is exposed to high altitude winds that circulate around the entire Pacific ocean, and it is not near a extremely populated area with a lot of fossil fuel burning that would skew the results. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global Barrow, Alaska, Mauna Loa, Samoa, and the South Pole all show the re same trend. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... We have comprehensive data going back a million years, from deep ice cores.

cbkeller 8y ago
Quite right. Geologist here - I know a lot of folks who study climate and paleoclimate, they know what they're doing. If anything I'd say the evidence is even more solid than most well-informed people realize. edit: if anyone wants comprehensive data, a good place to start is with the IPCC reports, particularly the "physical science basis" section: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ This is a few years old now (they're currently working on the "sixth report") but the data was already clear and uncontroversial.
oldandtired 8y ago
> Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm. After water vapour has been removed? What is the effect if water vapour is not removed from the figures? Does this show a different profile or is the profile identical? What was the reasoning for removing the water vapour figures from the readings? Simple line graphs like these don't give the kinds of profiles needed. We need much more comprehensive mapping. Looking at the sites mentioned, there does not appear to sufficient coverage of all environmental areas to give us a clear picture of what is going on. My first question is whether or not the measurements are being affected by the local environment profiles - are there other factors we need to know about the areas in which the measurements are taking place? In other words, are there specific site characteristics that effect CO2 measurements that are not applicable elsewhere. For other untested sites, are there site specific characteristics that would show a higher or lower CO2 profile? You note that the high altitude winds that circle the Pacific Ocean are an advantageous factor for Mauna Loa in determining global CO2 levels. My first question relates to what effects does the Ring of Fire have on these readings and my second would be related to what effects does the circulating wind flows have on these readings. Just looking at the displayed data leaves me with lots of unanswered questions. These are questions that can only be answered by having CO2 monitoring stations located in 1000's upon 1000's of different locations: islands, remote sea buoys, mountain ranges, savannahs, forests, high plains, low plains, continuously circling weather balloons, coastal and internal land mass locations, cities, farming communities, deserts and arid land locations, tropical, sub-tropical, temperate zones. We also need all the other data that will give us a handle on what is happening. For ocean locations, are there dissolved CO2 levels that are affected by changing temperature profiles and is there a atmospheric and ocean transfer of CO2 that affects the readings? Does the plankton population levels change the CO2 levels, is there feedback loops here - positive or negative? There are many more measurements that can be undertaken to give us a better understanding of what is happening. The complexity is very high and we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields to get the information required. As I said, we need comprehensive data to be able to determine what strategies are going to be useful and what will be of no use whatsoever.