Mauna Loa hits 400 PPM of CO2, alarmists wail and gnash teeth, Earth survives

@Louis Hooffstetter … and Y2K.

Al Gore: So please, take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilization and and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends. Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.

Totally agree, Al old chap. Jetsetting alarmists shouldn’t be allowed to jetset any more while spouting alarmism and “do as i say not as I do” rhetoric. There oughta be a law…

“John Tillman says:
May 10, 2013 at 10:47 am
Global temperature down; CO2 up.
That’s why the tax-grubbing scaremongers are now called catastrophic anthropomorphic “climate change” alarmists (CACCA) instead of CA “global warming” advocates, which isn’t as catchy.”
Yeah.
And if a cooler trend continues. Those of the likes of Al Gore and Co will probably do a U-turn and blame higher CO2 levels for Global Cooling and a new coming Ice Age. The spin will probably go something on the lines of keeping CO2 emissions to 350ppm so as to keep Gaia from freezing over. Since there’s been a lot of $$$ at stake in the whole CO2 based CC scam.

I need two size large t-shirts, please.

Steven O’Halloran says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
…..”it helps to understand those changes.”…
==========
Indeed, ask any poker player.
She plays by Her own rules, no prisoners.

Steven O’Halloran says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
So, were all of you as cynical when Sandy hit New Jersey and New York? Was that a non-event?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you need do it type “Sandy” into the search box and you’ll find the answer to your question. We discussed for example that the storm track itself shows no warming for the last 70 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/
We discussed that it was not at all unprecedented:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/next-time-somebody-tries-to-tell-you-hurricane-sandy-was-an-unprecedented-east-coast-hurricane-show-them-this/
We discussed that the US is actually in a hurricane drought:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/01/pielke-jr-on-hurricane-sandy-not-the-new-normal/
As well as that not only was the storm within normal parameters, but that much of the damage was due to poor planning and design of infrastructure in densely populated areas and a whole host of other issues were dealt with in detail as well. Just one word in the search box Steven, and you can see for yourself.
Or the wild fires, droughts, flooding, or tornados, were they? It’s not helpful to just disregard changes in the climate (or the world for that matter)–it helps to understand those changes.
Nor is it helpful to invent changes that haven’t occurred! The next major IPCC report already admits that the global frequency of wild fires, droughts and flooding hasn’t changed in the last century and that tornadoes and hurricanes have not only dropped in frequency and intensity, but that the scientists are now predicting even LESS nor more of them. Type AR5 in the search box, see for yourself.
If you educate yourself instead of presuming the ignorance of the readership, you just might join our cynicism.

Just as the entire world was about to die, mankind saves the day. Hooray…!!
And to mark this historic event, plants all over the world will be celebrating and thanking mankind for saving them from CO2 asphyxia.
.

Ahh, the lovely sound of crickets, waiting to gobble up all those lovely greens growing profusely in an abundance of CO2. The world at peace and in harmony…. all except those silly Homo sapiens.
Red lines crossed, green lines crossed… Does any of it matter when the crickets are singing? They’ll still be doing it 1 million years from now. Will we? If not, it won’t be because we made the oceans boil with too much CO2.

There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion – none of the claims made from the very beginning by Callendar/Keeling are based on actual measurements of man made. It’s an illusion.
All they have done is from the beginning is say that it is man made increase while measuring all sources, and, that’s besides Keeling et all fiddling Mauna Loa to show a trend – arbitrarily deciding what is “volcanic” and what is “pristine well mixed background” sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes in the possibly biggest volcanic hot spot in warm seas, is not science. It is a trick.
Arbitrarily – COD: arbitrary 1. Derived from mere opinion or random choice; capricious; unrestrained; despotic.
Callendar chose a ridiculously low figure for the mythical “well-mixed” background they concocted and Keeling created the illusion of an increased “trend”.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
Volcanic Carbon Dioxide
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-25
Revision 2 ISO:2011-Dec-11
“Abstract
A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. DeeDeepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”
They have never, ever, shown man made increase. It is a trick, an illusion. They have never shown man made distinct from volcanic and they have deliberately downplayed the amount of volcanic activity.
This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural – there is no such thing as well mixed background – AIRS concluded it didn’t exist and that CO2 was lumpy – i.e. localised. They have still not released the top and bottom of troposphere measurements which they included to get their conclusion. This is no different from the temperature shenanigans.
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Revelle_Admits_CO2_Theory_Wrong

Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:06 am
There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion
Myrrh, as said several times to you: volcanic CO2 (either subduction or magma) has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. Fossil fuels CO2 have much lower ratios. Thus any substantial release of CO2 from volcanoes (or from the oceans, including deep ocean volcanoes) would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm DEcrease in lockstep with human emissions. Only the release of vegetation decay would have the same effect, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance. That a geologist doesn’t know that makes me wonder about his knowledge…
This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural
Think before you write such nonsense. It is impossible to manipulate the Keeling curve, without including hundreds of people from tens of institutes in a lot of countries. They all find the same increase over time. The only possible way is by manipulating the calibration gases (at 0.005 ppmv/day!), but even there, Scripps still is using their own calibrations, independent of NOAA.
When Keeling started his measurements, he and his boss Revelle still were thinking that more CO2 would be beneficial. They started measurements long before the 1970’s cooling scare or de 1990’s warming scare. Keeling had no interest in manufacturing a curve, he was only interested to maintain the best observations…

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:46 am
Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:06 am
“There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion”
Myrrh, as said several times to you: volcanic CO2 (either subduction or magma) has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. Fossil fuels CO2 have much lower ratios. Thus any substantial release of CO2 from volcanoes (or from the oceans, including deep ocean volcanoes) would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm DEcrease in lockstep with human emissions. Only the release of vegetation decay would have the same effect, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance. That a geologist doesn’t know that makes me wonder about his knowledge…
Shrug – without providing a scrap of evidence that any of the measurements since Callendar/Keeling have ever shown a distinct man made amount. The real consensus scientists of the IPCC 95 was that there was no discernible man made signal, this was changed by Houghton/Santer to say “it was all man made fault”. That there in a nutshell proves that data manipulation in play. You’re part of that generation of confusion.
Keeling didn’t, and they still don’t, make any of their measurements based on this, they merely chuck out anything they consider “volcanic” because of great amount, and measure when they get an hour or more of “stable” amounts – they include volcanic and natural in that because there is no way they separate it or can separate it.
If they could separate it they would take all measurements and analyse from all of what is ‘man made’ and what ‘volcanic’ or otherwise ‘natural’ local and what comes in on the wind.
This is sleight of hand bs ing, there are no man made even attempted.
“Carbon in the air is made up of 12C (99%), 13C (1%), and 14C (1 per trillion)” http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/met102/docs/global_warming_man_or_myth.pdf
I don’t know how accurate this is.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
“The misuse of the Suess Effect as a fossil fuel fingerprint instead of an empirical standard for the correction of carbon dating contamination, lead to an initially idiosyncratic expansion of this concept by Keeling (1979), who sought to include 13C depletion of vegetation and its effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere is enriched in 13CO2 by the process of photosynthesis, which favours the assimilation of 12C into plant tissue during growth (Furquhar et al., 1989). This is used to differentiate between terrestrial and oceanic CO2 sources (Keeling et al., 2005), and the concept, proposed by Craig (1954), is actually older than Suess’ original research. Moreover, plant based fossil fuel derivatives are therefore considered to be 13C depleted. Following this line of logic, fossil fuel emissions, being derived from plants, should be 13CO2 depleted as well. However, when the Keeling (1979) article expanded its internal definition of the Suess Effect to include this observation, it was once again to the exclusion of volcanic influence.
“In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, 13C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, 13C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of 13C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in 13C. Nevertheless, the emissions of continental margin and back arc volcanoes that source a significant proportion of their carbon from subducted volatiles, remain 13C depleted (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991; Sano et al., 1995; Hernández et al., 2001). Thus, as plants continue to enrich the atmosphere in 13C while supplying the 13C depleted kerogen that is subducted into the mantle, volatiles failing to return to the surface may cause the mantle to become increasingly 13C depleted over time. Moreover, the significant proportion of volcanic carbon dioxide that diffuses through the soil (Gerlach, 1991) has its carbon isotope chemistry further contaminated by 13 depleted biogenic soil carbon (Hernández et al., 2001).
“Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both 13C & 14C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society’s unexplained “chemical analysis”. If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.”
“This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural”
Think before you write such nonsense. It is impossible to manipulate the Keeling curve, without including hundreds of people from tens of institutes in a lot of countries. They all find the same increase over time. The only possible way is by manipulating the calibration gases (at 0.005 ppmv/day!), but even there, Scripps still is using their own calibrations, independent of NOAA.
When Keeling started his measurements, he and his boss Revelle still were thinking that more CO2 would be beneficial. They started measurements long before the 1970′s cooling scare or de 1990′s warming scare. Keeling had no interest in manufacturing a curve, he was only interested to maintain the best observations…
Callendar/Keeling were pushing ‘man made driving global temps’ as a danger, the environmentalists at the time concerned about smoke pollution, a legitimate worry and the worry that kick started carbon dioxide measurements a couple of centuries earlier, that was Keeling’s agenda, then Callendar linked it to rising temps and and that’s why Callendar became a laughing stock when temps plummeted in the early sixties – pictured shovelling snow.
There is a mix of agendas here adding to the confusion, but the reason this is all so corrupt is because the monied and powerful at govenment level agenda which created the IPCC was kick started by those who wanted a global scare to manipulate society and economics. Their interests are to make this as confusing as possible.
Keeling/Callendar/Ravelle had their own agenda. Ravelle changed his story before he died, finally coming to his senses when he saw how his earlier promotion of the fake fisics had screwed up both science and society.
This is not based on science, it is based on non-scientists abusing science.
It cannot be understood outside of its history.
This history starts with Callendar cherry picking a low mythical “well mixed background” and ends with the IPCC screwing ice core data to fit in with that. Their interests are to make this as confusing as possible. But the manipulations began with Keeling/Scripps which his son continued before this was taken control of to the IPCC agenda. The trend is manufactured and man made never shown.
Show me the AIRS raw data top and bottom of troposphere which they included in their conclusion that to their astonishment “carbon dioxide was not at all well-mixed but lumpy”.
Don’t keep showing the cherry picked mid troposphere which bears no relation to that conclusion.
Lumpy is local. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it sinks. Carbon dioxide is in all the rain, carbonic acid. It is constantly coming down to the surface and most of this is in local weather, when the wind stops carbon dioxide will fall to the Earth..
Some will travel on the big wind systems as here: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf
Winds are volumes, packets, of the real gas air on the move, they are not an imaginary wooden spoon stirring or the gods at the four corners blowing around the non-existant empty space well mixed ideal gas atmosphere of AGW fisics.
As they say, this is how they get their carbon dioxide, and the El Nino peak 97/98 clearly shows this.
The “science” of AGW is corrupted on all levels, which is why their arguments always shift and change.
http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974
This is Keeling’s paper – the magicians trick, saying there is a rise and that it’s man made and giving no information to back that up, only a confusion of graphs which prove nothing of his claim.
[snip – ad hom ~mod] And the future charlatans got on the bank wagon.

Global Warming is caused by people like you! Everyday living is destructive to the Environment. One of the most important ways people can help save the environment is to STOP HAVING BABIES. Another very important thing you can do is to euthanize your pet. Our company sells Carbon Credits which are the only hope of saving the planet.
For the sake of the planet, we need to act before it’s too late.
Please visit our company’s website for more information. http://greentremayne.com/Carbon_Free_Living.html

vukcevic says: May 11, 2013 at 3:09 am
“That is all fine, except for one thing, the change in CO2 levels doesn’t change N. Hemisphere temperature, but it could be the other way around.”
You also aren’t considering the mass balance, it seems. The recent atmospheric accumulation (over the last few decades) accounts for about half our emissions. The rest must have gone into the oceans and the terrestrial biomass. You are proposing that increased temperatures might have naturally caused the atmospheric increase (mostly through ocean outgassing, I suppose). Are you suggesting that the Southern oceans have at the same time become huge sinks and absorbed the near totality of our emissions? That would means that just as the Northern Hemisphere became a huge net source (up to 2ppm of CO2, or 16 Gt per year), the Southern Hemisphere became a sink twice as effective (32 Gt per year). And this would have occurred in such a manner as to make our emissions fail to contribute. We must also suppose that the southern ocean would have sunken most of our emissions anyway.

Steven O’Halloran says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
“. For example, what does 15,000 on the stock market mean? Is it irrelevant, or does it depend on who you are and where you are? ”
It is irrelevant. The 30 companies used to compute the number change from time to time.
The current number is not based on all the same companies of a few years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average
“The components of the DJIA have changed 48 times in its 117-year history. General Electric has had the longest continuous presence on the index, with its latest addition being in 1907. More recent changes to the index include the following:
On February 19, 2008, Chevron and Bank of America replaced Altria Group and Honeywell. Chevron was previously a Dow component from July 18, 1930, to November 1, 1999. During Chevron’s absence, its split-adjusted price per share went from forty-four dollars to eighty-five, while the price of petroleum rose from twenty-four dollars to a hundred.
On September 22, 2008, Kraft Foods replaced the American International Group (AIG) in the index.[5]
On June 8, 2009, General Motors and Citigroup were replaced by The Travelers Companies and Cisco Systems, which became the third company traded on the NASDAQ to be part of the Dow.[6]
On September 24, 2012, UnitedHealth Group replaced Kraft Foods following Kraft’s spinning off its North American snack food business.[7]”

400ppm!! nevermind that!!. 440GBP a ton is a figure to be concerned about.
This is the new price for spuds on the market, due to a massive shortfall in harvest from winter cold and erratic growing season temperatures.
When the army of hungry leaves finally emerge, they will need to get busy sucking up all the CO2 they can get.
I think the T-shirt should show mobs of cheering Irishmen.

Maybe that’s why my lawn is growing a foot a week.

@Jimbo
Look guys, the more they scream and shout about 400ppm then you reply with 15+ years of temperature standstill. That should get some of them thinking.
Try that at The Guardian and they simply remove your comment and add you to their pre-moderation list, i.e. ban you from posting.

Richard M says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:20 am
Underwater vents and volcanoes could have emitted more CO2 recently. This would change the equilibrium balance between the oceans and the atmosphere.
Quite impossible, because of the 13C/12C ratio of the (deep) oceans, which is way higher than in the atmosphere and we see a huge drop in 13C/12C ratio, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface layer (much larger than over the glacial-interglacial transitions over the past 800 kyr). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
The current drop in 13C/12C ratio is about 1/3rd of what can be expected from fossil fuel burning. That is diluted by the continuous (deep) ocean exchanges of CO2 from the equator to the poles and back via the THC. If that was additional to the human emissions, one would expect a 4 times higher increase in the atmosphere (32 GtC/yr or ~16 ppmv/yr) than from the human emissions alone.
But that is problematic by the mass balance: if humans emit 8 GtC/yr as CO2 and the oceans emit in balance 24 GtC more than they absorb, the difference between 32 GtC extra input per year and the measured yearly increase of 4 GtC (2 ppmv) in the atmosphere must be absorbed by plants (the only other relative fast source/sink). But the oxygen balance only shows a net sink of ~1 GtC/yr by the whole biosphere:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Surely measurements taken on a volcano are as likely to be right as temperature ones taken with the thermometers in a hot air vent. Even so called extinct volcanoes are nearly certain to still be spewing out through lesser vents.

Bruce Cobb says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:33 am
Historically, C02 levels have risen after a warm period, with a lag time of between 100 to perhaps 800 years.
Indeed, the average increase and decrease over the past 800 kyr was about 8 ppmv/°C with a lag of ~800 +/- 600 years over glacial-interglacial tranisitions and several thousands of years for the opposite transition. But this quite good relationship (correl. 0.86) was broken some 160 years ago, by coincidence at the moment that humans started to emit ever increasing amounts of CO2. Not only in quantity, but also depleted of 13C and absent of 14C. See the change in ice cores:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
Thus there was a direct relation between CO2 levels and temperature, with CO2 lagging, but nowadays CO2 is leading, as we are about 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium.
In how far that influences temperature is an entirely different question, where the answer is certainly not given by the current climate models…

Patrick says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:52 am
The question is, how much of the “HS” and temp change is a direct CAUSE of emissions of CO2 from human activities?
From the CO2 HS, some 90+ ppmv is directly the result of human emissions, some 8 ppmv may be from the increase in ocean temperatures since the LIA.
From the temperature HS, the reverse may apply: 90% natural and 10% from the extra CO2, but that is a wild guess, not better than the overblown “projections” from current climate models…

Bill Illis says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:53 am
Have you ever looked at the Greenland ice core CO2 estimates. Basically, they have been abandoned and are never really talked about because of the nonsense results (or let’s say unexpected results, some plus +300ppms etc).
All ice cores receive dust from their neighbourhood, including seasalt (chlorides, sulphates and carbonates). That is no problem for the Antarctic ice cores, as the carbonates don’t decompose at the neutral conditions and low temperatures at measurement time (and there is far less dust deposit in the inland Antarctic cores).
It is a problem in the Greenland ice core, where the nearby Icelandic volcanoes frequently give highly acid deposits at the summit. That causes in situ CO2 formation and more if the old method (now largely abandoned for CO2 measurements) of melting the sample under vacuum is applied at measuring time. With melting, CO2 levels even increased over time, the longer the test was done, as the reaction goes further and further…
Therefore the CO2 levels from the Greenland ice core aren’t used.
See e.g.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.47.issue4.6.x/abstract;jsessionid=AF91AE2541717EC6B3FEC4298102CC39.d03t02

Without question the crazies are running amok….but…..what other re-directions will the left employ to take the heat off of the Obama administration’s troubles? Pay no attention to the foreign policy disasters at the department of State and the White House….look over here…Hey….You!!!!!

Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys. All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements: over 8000 hourly averaged raw data + stdv a year, while the changes are less than 8 ppmv over the seasons as is the case at Mauna Loa (less than 2 ppmv at the South Pole). Even if they took one sample every two weeks (in triplo to avoid sampling errors) as happened a few years at the South Pole, that would be sufficient to see the seasonal curve and to calculate the yearly average and trend.
The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

vukcevic says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:20 am
CO2 global distribution
Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…