The calibrations for the CO2 measuring equipment were wrong.
The numbers we've been fed about the rise in CO2 for the last 50 years are questionable because of faulty calibration of equipment.
"The “null” hypothesis, namely that there has been no drift of the mole fraction, cannot be rejected for any of the Primaries with the statistics we have. Therefore, we assume that there has been no drift until now, and the assigned value for each primary is the average obtained for that cylinder during all CMDL calibration episodes."
"The above does not imply that the defined WMO Scale has not drifted."
"The average of all Scripps calibrations of all of our Primaries on the X99A scale was 0.06 micromol/mol higher than the average of all CMDL calibrations, while their average in the ambient range (345-415) was 0.02 micromol/mol higher than ours."
"Based on the assumption that the fifteen WMO Primaries have been stable, we have reassigned a constant value (the average of the measured values during the six CMDL calibration episodes) to each of them going back to 1994. We call this revised scale WMO-X2005."
"All laboratories and individuals for whom we have calibrated CO2 standards in the past will be able to read the previous and the newly revised values of their reference gases from the CMDL website..."
Keep in mind that the increases measured and reported so far at Mauna Loa were only 0.00013% average annual of the total air sample, or 1.3 parts per million.
More on calibration. 1996
Department of Commerce, Mountain Administrative Support Center, Procurement Division, MC3, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303-3328
"The calibration shall consist of a determination by the Scripps manometer of the mole fraction of CO2 in each NOAA reference gas cylinder..."
"...it is the intent of the Government to award a sole source contract under the authority 41 U.S.C. 253 (c)(1) to the University of California at San Diego. Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 2314 Ritter Hall, LaJolla, CA 92093, as this source is considered to be the only responsible source and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements."
Not only were Scripps AKA Mauna Lua the only collector of data, they were the only calibrator of the equipment.
If Scripps was wrong, then there was no independent check of the calibration, because they did it themselves, and all the other later CO2 measurers presumably had their equipment calibrated from Scripps.
The average increase Mauna Lua measured was 1.3 parts per million by volume. That is 0.00013%.
Anyone confident that their measurements and calibration errors weren't responsible for that?
http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/1996/10(October)/31-Oct-1996/Bsol001.htm
Why weren't the scientists of the past farsighted enough to pack a goodly amount of air into cylinders for future study? Then all this blather about calibration would be moot, just re-test the samples.
Don't exhale, ban dry ice. Works ever time doncha know?
bttt
fyi
.