Vivid Daily Display of Atmospheric CO2 on NASA Website

Atmospheric CO2, as measured from the Mauna Loa Conservatory in Hawaii, is illustrated monthly, in graphic and infrared coding on this interactive NASA link.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/



One can scroll by month back to see the CO2 concentration increase from 378 PPM in 2005 to the current 407 PPM. And next month it will show the latest increase. There is also an interacive Infrared chart, which shows the atmospheric CO2 levels worldwide. Super cool site!

 

I'm curious to know how they know the exact C02 levels thousands of years ago.

 

If you go to the website, on that particular graph, it states "proxy (indirect) measurements". This would imply that the data is from ice core samples. Personally, because of the uncertainty (some sources state +/- 200 years), I don't think ice core samples should be used as an argument FOR or AGAINST AGW.

 

Seems to me that claiming to know the exact C02 levels in the atmosphere thousands of years ago by whatever means is a hypothesis meant to prop up another hypothesis. A hypothesis sandwich with BS in the middle.

 

Actually, it's the deniers who use Ice Core data as their evidence against AGW, saying that CO2 was high umpteen years ago. I believe that ice core data is valuable as a tool to evaluate trends, but I don't think it can ever be used as proof.

 

Yes noticed the op didn't use the direct measurement chart. Must not have been dramatic enough

 

Good job! I wasn't able to copy that. You must have grabbed a screen shot. I should have thought of that.

Actually, I believe that chart says it all, interactively, and that's why I posted the link!!!

 

If you use windows of recent versions it comes with a snipping tool that allows you to screenshot just the parts you want.

I, however, have issues with the first chart for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is these are measurements taken near a volcano and extrapolating on the fly looks like their measurements spiked dramatically beginning about the last time that volcano erupted in the 80's. The current peak today does not seem to be the same between the two charts as well. Looks like they are about 27ish ppm different.

 

Yeah, I'm familiar with SNIPIT and SNAGIT, just didn't think to use it.

Here is the scientific situation and associated statement on nearby volcanoes.

https://skepticalscience.com/Measuring-CO2-levels-from-the-volcano-at-Mauna-Loa.html
Why Mauna Loa? Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island.

But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. 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).

This is not a concern in my mind, but if you mistrust the scientists, I guess it would be a concern.

 

As I said, there is inconsistency between their own two charts and the pattern on the first one is very skewed from earlier data beginning with the time they actually started observing it in the 50's and really spikes since the last eruption.

 

That chart shows CO2 increasing at a rate of 20ppm/decade or 2000 ppm/millennium. That is astonishing.

 

That is China's new found wealth and India's out of control population growth. Not a thing we can do about it

 

Greenhouse gas. Get it? Got it? Good.

 

As Paul Harvey used to say,"now for the rest of the story"

"A record of atmospheric CO2 over the last 1,000 years constructed from Antarctic ice cores and the modern instrumental data from the Mauna Loa Observatory suggest that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration was a relatively stable ~275ppmv up until the mid 19th Century. Since then, CO2 levels have been climbing rapidly to levels that are often described as unprecedented in the last several hundred thousand to several million years.

Ice core CO2 data are great. Ice cores can yield continuous CO2 records from as far back as 800,000 years ago right on up to the 1970’s. The ice cores also form one of the pillars of Warmista Junk Science: A stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level of ~275 ppmv. The Antarctic ice core-derived CO2 estimates are inconsistent with just about every other method of measuring pre-industrial CO2 levels.

Three common ways to estimate pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before instrumental records began in 1959) are:

1) Measuring CO2 content in air bubbles trapped in ice cores.

2) Measuring the density of stomata in plants.

3) GEOCARB (Berner et al., 1991, 1999, 2004): A geological model for the evolution of atmospheric CO2 over the Phanerozoic Eon. This model is derived from “geological, geochemical, biological, and climatological data.” The main drivers being tectonic activity, organic matter burial and continental rock weathering."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

 

You do realize the person that you are quoting, Watts, has only a High School education. That aside, I mentioned that I agree that ice cores are not 100% reliable. What's your point?

 

I think you have this backwards. CO2 concentrations from ice core data don't really support or refute AGW either way. Skeptics are the ones who point to past concentrations levels as a "see, it was higher in the past" argument. And climate change scientists agree. What skeptics often leave out is that a 2000ppm/millennium rate of increase is unprecedented in the modern human era and possibly even as far back as the birth of the planet. I mean think about it. Had humans started industrialization 2000 years ago we'd be close 4500 ppm today assuming there is enough fossil fuel to sustain that rate (which there probably isn't). That rate of increase is insane. And from what I can tell most skeptics don't refute that. Many just simply turn a blind eye to that fact.

 

I'm quoting David Middleton and your attack on the person rather than the content is telling. That aside, if you yourself doubt the accuracy of these ice core samples what's the point of the OP?

 

I think the main problem with the OP ice samples is their location and the fact that they differ from several other means of measuring past C02 levels which is why in my first post on this subject I said this is a hypothesis in support of hypothesis. We really can't be 100% sure of past C02 levels with any real accuracy. We may be able to find huge falls or rises over long periods but the chart in the OP is a fairy tale.

 

Proof... IMO that could only come with a double blind climatic experiment... which ain’t gonna happen
So all we got is a collection of evidence... evidence that indicates the probability of a problem of uncertain scope. Thequestion then becomes wheather we wish to try to mitigate this problem in the face of uncertainty

There are all sorts of uncertain problems that we attempt to mitigate. I do not know if I will catch the flu... but I get a flu shot to mitigate the risk. I do not know if I will get in a car accident, but I wear a seat belt to mitigate the risk. I do not know if my house will burn, but I carry insurance to mitigate the risk

 

But do you mitigate the risk of being in a car crash by not driving a car? The answer is no, you hope for the best because driving a car in this day and age is not a luxury it is a requirement and until something as affordable and practical comes along you will continue to drive a car.. Same thing with fossil fuel. Until something as affordable and practical comes along we will continue to use it.

 

Curiously the global average temperature 1000 years ago was ~ 1 deg F higher than it is today.

 

Yes, but there are not only affordable options today, but options that will save you a ton of dinero. I built a Zero-Energy home. The passive solar and thermal mass provide over 99% of my heating. The home is cooled naturally, because it is bermed. I get all my electricity from Solar PVs and a Wind Turbine. I run a surplus every month, and get a check at the end of the year. I'm thinking of purchasing a 100% electric car, to utilize the surplus.

 

That's great and as I said as new technology comes on line and is as affordable and practical as fossil fuel it will replace fossil fuel. One thing I notice though is you have a wood burning stove and wood is fossil fuel. Not only that but cutting it with chainsaws and hauling it in trucks is more fossil fuel so don't pat yourself on the back too hard.

 

Yes, I do. As I mentioned, we get 99% of our heat from the passive solar and thermal mass. We burn wood, on average, about 10x per year. We built the house in 2011, and we are still burning construction left-over lumber. But I don't pat myself on the back. I didn't design the home. Unfortunately, this gentleman passed away last year. He designed about 50 of these homes, in this area. His name was Mike Shealey, and he was a true ecological hero!!!

 

I must be an ecological hero too. I'm 100% off grid with solar power and passive solar heat and I built my home myself with trees off my land that were dead or dying from bark beetles. All environmentalist in here should fall at my feet , LOL