The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a report on concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions represent what goes into the atmosphere, concentrations remain in the atmosphere after complex interactions between the atmosphere, the biosphere and the cryosphere And the oceans.

 The oceans absorb about a quarter of total emissions, and the biosphere absorbs another quarter, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The oldest greenhouse gas monitoring plant in the Hawaiian island of

Mauna Loa expects carbon dioxide concentrations to remain above 400 ppm for the current and future years, without landing for successive generations.

Yes dear @Isam Issa Omran but the question remains are these concentrations representative to the Global Earth Atmosphere.

Nabeel Hameed Al-Saati ,

The Mauna Loa site was chosen by Charles Dave Keeling because it was remote from the effects of vegetation and industry. It is now known that atmospheric CO2 oscillates because of vegetation in the mainly continental Northern Hemisphere. Since Mauna Loa is situated near the Equator it provides a good average reading.

The choice of Mauna Loa is described in this Nova interview with Ralph Keeling, Charles' son. See: https://www.facebook.com/NOVApbs/videos/10155372647842196/

The Keeling curve proves that CO2 is increasing, but not that global warming is happening. That is proved by temperatures recorded world wide using thermometers. There is little doubt that the rise in CO2 is cause by the burning of fossil fuels.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the rise in CO2 is causing global warming? The answer from the conservative IPCC is a >95% Yes.

As pointed out by Dr Towe, we no longer rely on Mauna Loa alone for measurements of CO2, but those measurements have shown that the Mauna Loa are representative of global levels.

Ken,

The question is about the location of the Mauna Loa site so my answer was relevant, unlike your response which was to ask whether some unspecified solution to an unnamed problem is the right one!

"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."

Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa

Posted on 25 October 2010 by Andy Skuce

Dear all,

I am catching up with this question after an answer by Prof. Andersen in the discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Global_warming_and_climate_change_Hoax_or_reality

He shared the above picture. Even though I am not questioning the historical and the interest of the location and I had complementary question about the methodology and epistemology. Moreover, I assume that these labs have state of the art equipment.

I am just wondering for these data what was:

1- The recorded temperatures

2- The atmospheric pressure

3- HR%

In addition, I would have appreciated a full chemical analysis at that location of the:

- sea water,

- condensed evaporated water,

- rain water when available.

Finally, is there any such records taken at other latitudes and longitudes?

Dear Dr Havet,

You will find some answers to your questions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve and in the references plus the "See also" there.

This "See also" may be particularly relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory

Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...

Do they give the change in radon concentration in that area at the same time?

The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.

All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.

Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.