Guest Post by Steven Goddard
We have all seen lots of pictures of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption now, with steam and ash billowing up in the air. The eruption started one month ago, and as the Guardian reports, The eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano is unlikely to have any significant impact on climate but has caused a small fall in carbon emissions, experts say.
The Guardian editors seem to have forgotten that the volcano itself is spewing massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps their kinship with Plane Stupid is having an impact? Plane Stupid’s goal is to stop plane traffic in the UK, and they must be thrilled by the flight ban and the damage to the economy.
Added:
Volcano CO2 budget (CO2 is emitted independent of ash) ~200,000 tons per day X 30 days of eruption = 6,000,000 tons of CO2.
Plane CO2 Budget – assumes half of EU planes haven’t flown for the past six days 340,000 EU tons per day X 0.5 EU shutdown X 6 days = ~1,000,000 tons of savings.
People using alternative transportation (as Anthony and the BBC pointed out) as a replacement for aircraft – cars, trains, battleships , etc. ~1,000,000 tons of extra CO2 Is a battleship more “green” than a jumbo jet?
The total gain is 6,000,000 – 1,000,000 + 1,000,000 = 6,000,000 tons of excess CO2 from the volcano. The temporary aircraft shutdown has little or no net impact on CO2 emissions, but the volcano has a large impact.
Video and reader poll follow.
Below is a video chronology of the glacier and volcano, giving a feel of the events of the past month. First video shows what the glacier looked like prior to the eruption.
The next video shows the first night of the eruption – March 21. Note the similarity to Hawaiian volcanoes – lava fountains and little steam or ash.
By March 24, some steam and ash is starting to appear as glacial meltwater begins to mix with the magma.
By April 14, flash flooding from glacial melt began to pour down the side of the glacier.
The flooding was widespread and devastating downstream.
By April 17, the eruption was primarily steam, CO2 and ash.
Should climate modelers start differentiating between man made CO2 and “organic” natural CO2?
Reader Poll :
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
enneagram (14:12:33) :
We, “Humans”, nothing but oxygen breathing microscopic molds, living on molten lava slag which we call ground,
You should try moving to a new neighborhood, or getting new friends…
What the plane-haters fail to realise is that, per passenger/km, a 747 is midway in the fuel-efficiency figures between cars, buses and trains.
Boeings figures show a fully-loaded 747 getting 100 miles per gallon per passenger. To get the same efficiency with a passenger car, you’d have to have two adults in a 3 cylinder diesel mini car returning 50 mpg. I doubt many of the people driving all over Europe are doing it in economy cars, or buses, and I believe the trains are all full.
“”” Scott (13:25:04) :
George E. Smith (12:50:11) :
Please go somewhere and read about molecular orbital hybridization. I don’t care if it is Wikipedia, a book, a lecture, or whatever. The bonding around the carbon in CO2 is sp hybridized, and is therefore NOT tetrahedral (which would be sp3 hybridization.
And don’t quote mine the Wikipedia link I gave. First, WIki is crap, as you yourself say. Second, the quote you gave is for BENT molecules, and CO2 is NOT BENT. Here’s what you should have quoted:
Linear: In a linear model, atoms are connected in a straight line. The bond angles are set at 180°. A bond angle is very simply the geometric angle between two adjacent bonds. For example, carbon dioxide has a linear molecular shape.
Just so you know, bent molecules have lone electron pairs on the central atom. Drawing a correct Lewis structure of CO2 shows that it clearly does not have lone pairs.
And no one ever said that all the electrons were exactly centered between the C and O atoms. Basic general chemistry tells us this! Linear/tetrahedral/octahedral/bent/etc are given by the arrangement of atoms in the system, not the electrons (though the electrons can in fact determine where the atoms go). Saying that you’ve rotated the rod of CO2 to hide some of the electrons doesn’t really work…at the very least the lines in O-C-O should have been bolded in your method (I don’t agree with that, but at least it’s representative of what you’re claiming).
-Scott “””
Well I did go here:-
http://www.chem.ucsb.edu/coursepages/05spring/1C-Perona/hybridization.pdf
And I did go here:- http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
I didn’t find anywhere that showed all the shared electrons being in the same plane as the linear nuclear configuration of the three atoms; and if they were then the 15 micron bending mode would not those two forms.
But I’ll gladly take your word for it that everything is in the same plane.
As for the quote I cited from your reference: “”” George E. Smith (12:50:11) :
“”” Like in the other arrangements, electrons must be spaced as far as possible. “”” That was in fact in part of the wiki article that at the time was talking about H2O which IS a bent molecule; BUT the quote does say “Like in the other Arrangements,” so it was not restricted to bent molecules.
And as for this “”” And no one ever said that all the electrons were exactly centered between the C and O atoms. Basic general chemistry tells us this! “””, please note that “no one” also includes ME among those who have never said that.
I’ll accept your statement that linear, tetrahedral, etc refers to the atom configuration, and not the electron configuration; and given that I certainly am and always have been in agreement that CO2 is a linear molecule; and that I was making an mistake by erroneaously using the term tetrahedral to refer to the carbon atom bonds; which result in a tetrahedral atomic configuration in the diamond crystal.
I’m always happy to learn and to learn to not use technical terms in the wrong context.
I’ll just assume that the little CO2 animation above is fictional; and that CO2 doesn’t really do that at 15 microns (well it only does one of those two bending vibrations)
My Keyboard only has a choice of = or – and there is no bold shift key to change either of them to something else. It just seemed natural to me that a 90 degree rotation turns = into -; but then since that isn’t the real structure anyway; then that becomes superfluous.
So my apologies to Steve for suggesting his happy faces weren’t quite correct.
George E. Smith (15:11:41) :
Apologies if I went overboard with my explanation. It has been a long time since I studied theoretical chemistry but I still like the subject. As a result, I might have become a bit too enthousiastic. (And I’m a bit surprised the mods let it all through – this will be my last on this subject)
As Scott wrote at 13:01:15: Details like this might make a casual reader with a chemical background reject your other, valid points.
There is no harm in visualizing CO2 with balls-and-sticks for yourself, as long as you remind yourself that it’s just a model. It’s ‘good enough’ for most cases, and a very successful model at that.
As a chemist, I don’t see any problem writing H-O-H for water, or H3C-CO-CH3 for aceton, even though I know that both are bend. Thanks for showing me which assumptions I unconsciencely make 🙂
In fact, you can forget most everything I wrote. As long as you remember that the 3D situation usually is too complex to show in a 2D drawing, so chemists just use O=C=O and don’t care whether it is a correct projection of the 3D situation – it usually isn’t. It shows which atoms are connected, and whether bonds are single or double – and that’s all it says to a chemist.
BTW, nice animations of the various vibrational modes.
Hey Anthony, not bad for a “mere” meteorologist to have so many unbelievable scientific minds on just a little curiosity driven blog!
Well done my friend!
Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:19:36) : David, the increase of d13C from the last glacial maximum to the start of the Holocene in the atmosphere was about 0.4 per mil, with CO2 increasing from about 180 to 260 ppmv.
Golly. We were all the way down to 180? That’s the point where C3 plants start to gasp for breath… I guess that explains the grasses (C4) starting to dominate as they could still breath at those drastically low levels.
The plants will scrub to the ‘gasping’ level in just a few years if we let them:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
Raises an interesting point, though. It looks like part of the Ice Age profile is a near death experience for plants as they scrub the air to starvation levels of CO2. Better hope those volcanoes keep cranking it out, or we are headed for: 1) Ice Age. 2) Starvation from plants not growing. 3) Desert conditions as the cold does not evaporate as much water for rain.
(It’s pretty well attested that there are far more desert areas during ice epochs of glaciation.)
BTW, at least one researcher claims that the U and Th depletion ought to take about 4ish billion years to run low enough for vulcanism to drop off… or right about now… I sure hope he’s wrong. When the volcanos die, we die. From CO2 depletion.
Not only is the change in d13C far larger than ever seen in the past, but completely opposite in trend (but in ratio to CO2 emissions…) compared to CO2 increases during glacial-interglacial transitions.
Um, need I point out that we’re not in a glacial-interglacial transition? We’re in an interglacial-glacial transition. “I think this matters”.
The start of the Holocene was warmer than the Roman Optimum.
The Roman Optimum was warmer than the MWP.
The MWP was warmer than now.
The peaks are all getting lower. (I’ve left a couple out, but the trend holds).
See how the ‘recent’ 10,000 years lines all decline in this graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png
We’ve had our interglacial. It’s over.
Yeah, it’s a geology thing, so it will take a few thousands of years to really notice, but hey, not my problem. The ice is returning. (Growth is shown in Antarctica. The North Pole is going to catch up next – being more ocean influenced it takes more time to get going – though the record shows that at the start of the Holocene it was free of ice in summers; so we’ve already got some ice back. Cheering for Summer Ice Cap at the north pole is, er, um, “not good”… it’s the essential step to the plunge into the glacial…)
To put it in perspective, see this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice-core-isotope.png
Again, notice the ‘recent’ period is in decline. Then notice that our ‘interglacial’ width (while it didn’t start with as high a peak as the last one on the far right) is about as wide. We’ve had our shot and it’s all down hill from here.
It’s just that it’s measured in thousands of years and you can walk further in one afternoon than the ice on average advances in a year. So we don’t notice. Toss in some ‘few hundred’ year ripple and it’s hard to even detect if you look for it (though the Vikings in Greenland detected it, and the ripple…)
More and more graphs at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
Though I think this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
ought to be printed out an put on everyones walls with a “You Are Here” sticky on the far right, and “headed there” with a down arrow to the more stable state of darned cold. (Note also that PRIOR interglacial peaks are all higher than our present peak. Don’t know what dampened it, but it HAS been warmer before. A lot warmer. And warmer is not stable and is not a runaway ‘tipping point’. Colder is stable, and the only tipping point is to the downside. (The good news it that it takes 10,000 years to ‘be an issue’. The bad news is that the 10,000 years started a few thousand years ago…)
So please ask yourself what happens at the EXIT from an interglacial, not the entrance. We are no where near the entrance…
d13C levels in lake sediments and speleotherms are locally influenced, and can’t be used for global estimates.
EVERYTHING is ‘locally influenced’. Just like the ocean “gut rocks” some fish poop out. What’s the c12/c13 ratio in them? Has it changed over time? Does the population of fish change over the glacial, and with it the gut rocks? The algae? Given that “gut rocks” were just recently discovered as ‘an issue’ I’m not willing to assert we have ‘perfect knowledge’ about them… or much else for that matter.
The simple fact is that “we don’t know”. Trying to put lipstick on this pig and claiming we know things we don’t, so the only possible reason is fossil fuel burning is just silly. It’s broken logic.
You can’t take a string of things we don’t really know and use them to prove a negative (that nothing else can do it) and then conclude a positive (so we must be the cause).
So please take a while to admire what we don’t know while you are admiring all the things you think you know. Then admire where we are in time.
“”” Sjoerd Schreuder (14:10:02) :
“George E. Smith (13:19:13) : “””
Sjoerd, I just reread your post in detail without all the cacaphony going on around my office; about the LCAO theory; and it sounds as if these molecules and their electrons act a lot more like blobs of mush, than little balls and springs snapped together on the desk. I’m quite impressed with the notion that the electrons spread over all three atoms; to render the two oxygens indistinguishable.
Well I always thought that Atomic spectrocopy was the cat’s meow; but it seems that Molecular is even moreso.
Thanks for taking the time with this; and you too Scott.
“”” Sjoerd Schreuder (16:22:55) :
George E. Smith (15:11:41) :
Apologies if I went overboard with my explanation. It has been a long time since I studied theoretical chemistry but I still like the subject. As a result, I might have become a bit too enthousiastic. (And I’m a bit surprised the mods let it all through – this will be my last on this subject) “””
Well Sjoerd; I don’t think the mods ever squelch anything because it is too accurate. Even if any post only registers with a single person; that is a useful communication; and I’ll be very surprised if I am the only one who gained any insight from the Posts that You and Scott made on this point.
My formal education goes so far back into history, I’m almost embarrassed to describe some of the stuff I learned. My very first text book on Electronics; was the very famous 1938 “Admiralty Handbook of Wireless Telegraphy.” One of the things I learned from that, was that Copper was a plum pudding with 63 Protons in it, and 34 raisins embedded into the surface of the pudding, and 29 electrons whirling around the pudding to keep it electrically neutral. I think it was published just before the Neutron was discovered.
Every day I use my State Secret Optical Design text book that was someone’s lecture notes in 1926. It used to be that if you showed up for an OSA convention and you didn’t admit to owning that text; you were considered a total imbecile.
In any case the proddings that I found in both yours and Scott’s comments will help me direct my delving into the newer Chemistry texts I have been picking up from the Stanford University Book Shop. My entire collection of High school and University texts all vanished mysteriously off a ship somewhere in the Pacific Ocean 49 years ago last month, in 1961.
So nothing you wrote was a waste of time; it is much appreciated.
George
As I understand it, the difference between c13 and c12 and c14 has to do with kinetics, as a function of resonant frequencies. (overly simplified). It can actually change or weaken reactions away from the individual atom, and heavier isotopes actually require more energy to split apart, and produce more energy upon combination.
This is massively overly simplified, but the effect increases as mass of the initial ‘stable’ isotope decreases. I.e. hydrogen would double or treble the initial mass with extra neutrons (deuterium or tritium, respectively).
Beyond that, I’ve no idea. Had the same question a month ago, regarding seafloor methane clathrates, carbon dioxide isotope composition in volcanoes, and isotopic composition of fossil fuels. That’s what came up in most of the answers. A great deal of the focus upon anthropogenic influence is focused on the change in carbon 13 ratios in plant uptake.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (12:31:50) : Your argument presumes the Vostok ice core paleo-CO2 levels are absolutely correct. However, Beck found over 16,000 contemporaneous chemical CO2 measurements to be considerably higher than the Vostok data:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:W8qAaqX_oGgJ:www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%2520Gas%2520Analysis-Ernst-Georg%2520Beck.pdf+beck+co2+chemical&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjcGqq7FVuFAskjIVglwWIGLwmYFXujgkcpGvStUHBk_hfgNavi4T_uWw8FSUgjDX51cFB_L2PWVUyLkvWRwRLMJ01BUn6o6Pgbk4qcTmeXgsfcv09QrrCPwxRIzZmloglghZm0&sig=AHIEtbSV6hYRvyB03YogfpoV-eknbrvOMg
In addition, Jaworowski has numerous arguments as to why the Vostok levels are questionable:
http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf
And so does JJ Drake:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/other-hockey-stick-co2-levels-part-2.html
kadaka (12:47:49) :
“Well, first was E.M. Smith’s great article on why detecting an anthropogenic CO2 signature based on atmospheric C12/C13 ratios is bunk.
Now I have found Dr. Roy Spencer’s article right here on WUWT that lays out about the same.
BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
So I am now up to two trusted sources which tell me that anyone telling me they can find a definite man-made CO2 signature and exact atmospheric amounts based on C12/C13 ratios, is not speaking out of the normal orifice used for transmitting verbal information.”
You can add to that information the fact that the CO2 is measured at Mauna Loa an active volcano the many contribute to the “raw” CO2 measurements.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hvo/activity/maunaloastatus.php
According to Dr Spencer “…There are quality control procedures applied later to exclude data when the wind is coming from the volcano crater above….” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/carbon-dioxide-growth-rate-at-mauna-loa/
I was a QC Engineer and Lab Manager for thirty years so I have a lot less “faith” in those quality control procedures than Dr Spencer does. Of course that is because of the number of lab techs I have had to fire for falsifying data. The great quality control found in Anthony’s surface station survey has done nothing to change my opinion…
enneagram (14:47:10) :
Gail Combs (14:17:48) :Sure beats starving people and animals because CO2 is limiting plant growth
But it is precisely that what Al Baby wants, to limit the number of births among those smelly and working commoners and make possible the chosen ones only to survive, those brilliant minds as He himself, the supreme green kool-aid drinker.
Yes that is why the USDA helped fund Epicyte’s Spermicidal Corn research. The !@ur momisugly#% stuff is now based here in North Carolina.
“…Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive
corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world
from overpopulation.
The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San
Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have
discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack
sperm.
By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of
these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the
company has created tiny horticultural factories that make
contraceptives.
‘We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make
anti-sperm antibodies,’ said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.
….Contraceptive corn is based on research on the rare
condition, immune infertility, in which a woman makes
antibodies that attack sperm….” http://www.ngin.org.uk/
For more information: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
And just to make you really worry GMO corn was banned in Mexico however that did not prevent the spread of GMO genes
“Contamination of Mexico’s
corn by genetically modified (GM) varieties, including the banned
StarLink, is much more widespread than previously reported,
according to a new study sponsored by a coalition of indigenous and
farmer groups.
“Now we see that the contamination has spread at least to the
south, central and northern regions of the country,”….
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-85760970.html
The idiots that came up with this and funded it should be on trial for “crimes against humanity” not us skeptics.
Luboš Motl (08:01:08) :
“Haha, I love the article and the picture of the two CO2 molecules.”
So we can tell which one has charm, but I’ve never heard of sad quarks. 🙂
In the reader poll, I chose “Natural CO2 is less damaging than man made CO2”. As a chemist, I know there is absolutely no difference between the two molecules, but I had to choose that choice. It was calling out to me. — sorry
(I feel better now).
For the life of me I don’t understand why we trust that the CO2 measurement from Mauna Lao which is an active volcano and is near Kilauea another active volcano that has been erupting for years are accurate for the entire globe.
Haha.. silly CO2 pictures.. but great article 😉
We must of course tax Island to make the volcano stop spewing out hazardous co2.
George E Smith and C=O=C vs C=O-C:
When diagramming a molecule, one shows how many bonds, not the 3D appearance of the bonds when looking from a particular angle. This is for two reasons: the number of bonds is useful information, and the 3D appearance cannot be drawn in such text sketches anyway.
Therefore: C=O=C
and BTW, looking at the molecule from 45 degrees, you would see both bonds in both places anyway.
and BBTW: bearing quantum effects in mind, the ‘appearance’ of the molecule is at least partly undefined. 🙂
Woops, that’s O=C=O, not C=O=C.
Can this amount of fresh water change something the oceanic circulation?
Its only a doubt
E.M.Smith (16:43:46) :
Golly. We were all the way down to 180? That’s the point where C3 plants start to gasp for breath… I guess that explains the grasses (C4) starting to dominate as they could still breath at those drastically low levels.
Not exactly, 180 ppmv is what was globally in the atmosphere, but that doesn’t mean that CO2 levels near the leaves were that low. In general, the CO2 levels over land near ground are a lot higher, due to soil respiration and organics decay (reason why I use mulching in my own garden). Only trees may have a more difficult time… But indeed, the start of C4 plants may be a reaction on lowering CO2 levels.
Based on the multiple ice cores, it is clear that the CO2 levels are in a temperature controlled dynamic equilibrium (CO2 lagging temperature). Whatever the individual changes in vegetation growth/decline, ice caps covering land and ocean temperatures, there is a quite linear relationship between temperature and CO2 levels (pre-industrial anyway).
I have no problems with the temperature/d18O profile of the glacials/interglacials, that is not where I object to your stories. Where I object is the d13C profile: that goes up with increasing CO2 levels in the pre-industrial past, and goes down nowadays. Thus in this period we see that the decrease in d13C is not by natural causes, neither is the increase in CO2, as temperature didn’t add more than 8 ppmv, if we may compare that to the past 420,000 (nowadays 800,000) years.
EVERYTHING is ‘locally influenced’. Just like the ocean “gut rocks” some fish poop out. What’s the c12/c13 ratio in them? Has it changed over time? Does the population of fish change over the glacial, and with it the gut rocks? The algae? Given that “gut rocks” were just recently discovered as ‘an issue’ I’m not willing to assert we have ‘perfect knowledge’ about them… or much else for that matter.
The simple fact is that “we don’t know”. Trying to put lipstick on this pig and claiming we know things we don’t, so the only possible reason is fossil fuel burning is just silly. It’s broken logic.
You can’t take a string of things we don’t really know and use them to prove a negative (that nothing else can do it) and then conclude a positive (so we must be the cause).
So please take a while to admire what we don’t know while you are admiring all the things you think you know. Then admire where we are in time.
Some places are completely unsuitable for “global” measurements, other are better. Lake sediments are unsuitable, as these give the local d13C changes, influenced by local plant growth and decay and runoff. The same for speleotherms. The same for organic ocean sediments.
Where to measure? The CO2 in ice cores shows CO2 levels and isotopic compositions of 95% of the atmosphere since at least a million years, far away from local influences. But smoothed (more over time). And coralline sponges show the broadly regional isotopic composition of seawater, which is influenced by local production, but that varies only slightly (+/- 0.1 per mil) over hundreds to thousands of years. Both ice core air samples and coralline sponges’ ocean samples show a huge decline in d13C (-1.4 per mil), far above the noise, completely in ratio with fossil fuel burning.
Thus we don’t know all the details of all the processes involved, but we do know with huge certainty that the current CO2 increase and d13C decline are not caused by any known natural source (which should follow fossil fuel burning releases at such an exact ratio).
@R. de Haan (08:07:39) :
Even if we would cancel all air traffic for an entire year it would only reduce the the CO2 emissions by a meager 1.5 %. costing the economy billions of dollars a day.
Air transport is a real soft spot of our economy and security.
Without it we are back into the Stone Age!
– – – – – – –
That’s exactly where we are headed if the warmists and the hysterical Greenies get their way. Better check the tire inflation on your bicycles folks, only a hand pump will do.
Hockey Schtick (17:37:02) :
In short:
– Beck’s data are broadly correct, but the problem is often taken at the wrong places: near huge sources. If one only uses historical data taken on board of ships or from the shore (with seaside wind), then ice core measurements are within the (wide) margin of the historical measurements. See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
– Forget Jaworowski. His objections are completely outdated by the work of Etheridge (1996!) on three ice cores drilled at Law Dome (Antarctica). See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
– Forget JJ Drake. He makes a typical error of the type:
A (temperature) causes B (CO2 levels), with a good correlation and
A (temperature) causes C (ice age – gas age lag) with a good correlation
which results in also a good correlation between B and C. Thus C influences B (or the opposite), according to Drake.
That there is a good correlation between B and C is the result of A, but there is not the slightest causation between B and C and any “correction” based on that correlation has not the slightest physical meaning.
Gail Combs (17:53:18) :
You can add to that information the fact that the CO2 is measured at Mauna Loa an active volcano the many contribute to the “raw” CO2 measurements.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hvo/activity/maunaloastatus.php
According to Dr Spencer “…There are quality control procedures applied later to exclude data when the wind is coming from the volcano crater above….” http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/carbon-dioxide-growth-rate-at-mauna-loa/
The influence of local volcanic vents is limited (+4 ppmv), as is the influence of upwind conditions (depleted by valley vegetation -4 ppmv). These values are flagged and not used for daily to yearly averages. But including or excluding the outliers doesn’t change the yearly average or trend with more than 0.1 ppmv. CO2 is measured at a lot of places, including the South Pole (no volcano, no vegetation). All show similar averages and trends within a few ppmv. See:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
The rigorous calibration and quality control procedures for Mauna Loa (and other stations) is described here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
I have a little more faith in CO2 measurements than in temperature measurements, as the first are based on far better and independent controls, involving lots of people from different organisations and laboratories…
Steven Goddard said: “They (informationisbeuatiful.com) are trying to save face, but the 300,000 tons from the volcano probably exceeds the savings from grounded planes”.
Steven, Are you not guilty of gross cherry picking here – of the sort that “AGW dismissers” tend to accuse the “AGW fearers”. The 300,000 tonnes figure from Patrick Allard is not based on measurements from Eyjafjallajoekull, but merely an “upper limit” for such an eruption. Likewise the 150,000 tonnes figure, which originates with Colin MacPherson(?) from Durham Univ is taken from data from a previous eruption nearby, so he is using the earlier eruption as a model for Eyja f.j. Yes, a model…, and we on WUWT all know the problems with “models” . I would humbly suggest that we should be using the figure of 15,000 tonnes provided by Icelandic vulcanoligists actually making measurements on Eyja f.j., since direct observation should, as we all recognise, be given greater credence than deductions from models.
All the figures here and the references for them are taken from the informationis beautiful website that you quote.