Mauna Loa to improve CO2 data reporting

I also say thank you to Dr. Tans and to you, Anthony.
As to science being self correcting, I agree entirely and admire the work that you and others are doing to forward the science. This is all essential. But how does one get the latest and best science through to the people that matter, the policy makers, in the quickest possible manner to stop them pursuing impossible goals at the expense of peoples’ lives and enormous sums of money?

Why does this feel like a triumph? Using proper scientific method shouldn’t be a target we keep striving for, it should be expected.
Thank you very much Dr. Tans, you show integrity in the face of those whom would preferr you kept your data “private” so the uninformed and fatally dull “Skeptics” won’t second guess the “Real Scientists”.
I apologize for this coming off so negative. You did a good thing Dr. Tans, thank you very much.

Dr Tans!
Thank you.
I appologize about the 1984 reference. Clearly it does not apply.
I hope you are not too affected by the VOG. I hear it is quite bad, with crop failures and all.

It will be very interesting to see an analysys of the satellite temperature record, against the new AIRS satellite CO2 record. What amazing times we live in!
Can you imagine a three dimensional representation of the sea surface temperatures, the UAH atmospheric temperatures, the AIRS CO2, water vapor, clouds, sea level and any other satellite data that is available, all from the last five years, and all coming together on a supercomputer?
Truly a magnificent and worthwhile usage of the resources available. My only fear is that this will NOT come to pass if we believe the science is settled…
I think that type of climate model, of the recent past, is a dream worth pursuing.

Anthony,
In reply to my first posting you said:
“Science is self correcting, and the process is usually methodical. While some would say I should fight fire with fire, that is not always productive. So far, my approach has made a lot of inroads.
Nature will be the final arbiter of truth.”
I really agree with both of you. I agree with your assessment of science, but I also have to agree with their assessment of the matter in terms of the larger socio-political context. There is a lot of money and power behind the AGW agenda, and thus a lot of corrupting influence. In those terms, you ought to go on just as you have to point out where the AGW case is weak and to criticize it on the merits of the science, as I hope other scientists and non-scientists will do. On the other hand, if the AGW is a political/quasi-religious movement, what good ultimately will the methodical self-correction of science do? Will anyone be paying attention? And will it move quickly enough to prevent us from committing economic and/or political suicide? I suppose those answers may be beyond the purview of this blog and its author, but they are nevertheless connected to its content.

Dee Norris (15:35:27) :
I have continued my email exchange with Dr. Tans regarding the post-collection processing of the MLO data.
I am still digesting some of his material, but he did include a paper which I have made that paper available here: http://tinyurl.com/5q6uob
Regarding the paper, he states:
“The methods have evolved a little since that paper, but they are still largely the same.”
End of quotes.
To understand a staistic or statistics,
first you must understand the assumptions behind the statistics.
It is a little disconcerting that the best explanation given so far is so old,
and admitted as out of date.
The raw data is anything but unprocessed, so is in my eyes probably not what you would expect raw data to be.
(ie unprocessed)
I am not referring to voltages recorded by the machine / measuring device/s or such like, but the amount of data removed before the “averages” are calculated.
It would appear much data is removed / discarded for reasons not fully explained, or for somewhat idealised reasons. I noted the reference to background levels that do not vary much at the South Pole so larger variations are discarded from the data at Mauna Loa, with words to the effect in keeping with the CO2 evenly missed assumption…
I hope a later pdf is soon avaliable as this important data set and it’s statistics should have known assumptions,
and therefore we may better understand the data set and it’s statistics.
Dr. Tans is obviously the only (or one of the very few) man to ask at present,
which in itself says much about the whole subject……

Anthony, I reference Dr. Pieter Tans email (final note) in the discussion under your posting: Post mortem on the Mauna Loa CO2 data eruption
“We are very much aware that in a time
when carbon dioxide emissions will cost a lot of money, there has to be
an objective and fully credible way to quantify emissions. Without
that, carbon markets cannot function efficiently, and policies cannot be
measured relative to their objectives. We think that the atmosphere
itself can provide objective quantification.”
Am I correct in assuming that Dr. Tan supports the premise that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming/climate change?
In an earlier discuaaion, I believe I read that the MLO was isolated from CO2 vents.
There are several vents on the Big Island of Hawaii, one a vent actively spewing lava and gases, that are in relatively close proximity to MLO and are located on the down-slope of Mauna Loa. These vents are not a source of CO2?
Good health, good luck, good data,
Ed Scott
REPLY: They say they can differentiate the CO2 from the vents due to knowing the location and wind direction changes. Only when the wind blows a certain direction does there appear to be a CO2 input from thge volcanic vent.