>莫纳罗亚山天文台是怎么可能是国际参考天文台二氧化碳全球Meassurments我不知道* *是“国际参考天文台”。鉴于莫纳罗亚山记录几乎肯定是最常引用的年代际CO 2 <子> < /订阅>记录,但据我所知天文台没有给予任何特殊地位:记录是用于自己的优点。搜索的短语“国际参考天文台”给了我一个冲击,强烈表明,它不是一个良好定义的术语。打击来自Roussel-Debet *。*(2006),并出现在以下背景:>…大气CO 2 <子> < /订阅>值测量的国际参考天文台在莫纳罗亚山(图5)。注意,缺乏资本。我不认为这意味着单一的存在,在莫纳罗亚山正式定义的“国际参考天文台”。相反,它就像写“太阳观测台在莫纳罗亚山”:有很多太阳天文台,这澄清我们讨论的是哪一个。同样的,有几个天文台产生国际有限公司使用<子> 2 < /订阅>数据,这指定了这里我们讨论的是哪一个。>如果是放在上面最重要的地球热羽流是加热的海洋? It's true that there is a posited mantle plume below Hawaii, so it seems likely that there might be increased thermal heat flux at the sea-floor. However, Von Herzen et al. (1989) found that > ... even though there is a small increase in heat flow with age along the swell, when compared with the off-swell heat flux, the anomalous heat flow associated with the Hawaiian Swell is probably of the order of 5–10 mW m−2 and arguably may not exist at all. But more to the point: even if there is slightly increased heat flux here, why do you think it would affect the CO2 readings? What mechanism are you suggesting by which a small amount of conducted heat, several kilometres below sea level, is able to perturb atmospheric CO2 concentrations several kilometres *above* sea level? Finally: even if there were such a mechanism, the mantle plume operates, as you point out, ‘all the year’ -- year in, year out, for millenia before the Mauna Loa station even existed. So at worse it would produce a constant offset, and wouldn't affect the trend of the measured CO2 concentrations. > How reliable can these data be? Very reliable indeed! Look at this comparison with records from Samoa, Barrow, and the South Pole. [![CO2 trend comparison][1]][1]
 Source: [NOAA](http://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/watermark/public/thumbnails/image/co2_mm_obs.png?itok=4bWQwfEa) Naturally, the shape of the annual cycle varies depending on the measuring station's latitude (you can see that the South Pole record is out of phase with the northern hemisphere records, as you'd expect), but the trends are an indisputably excellent match. If there were some confounding local influence at Mauna Loa, we certainly wouldn't see it reproduced at other sites thousands of kilometres away. > Is it due to the 3000 m altitude of the Observatory? That's certainly one factor that makes Mauna Loa an excellent site for this kind of study. [This Skeptical Science page](https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=196) lists some others: > 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. As to your final question: > Does not affect the geological Hawaiian situation? I assume that you meant to write "Does the Hawaiian geological situation not affect the readings?". I hope I've made it clear that it doesn't, and that Mauna Loa is so widely used precisely because of the *absence* of local influences on the readings. ---- **References** Sylvie Roussel-Debet, Gilles Gontier, Françoise Siclet, Marc Fournier, Distribution of carbon 14 in the terrestrial environment close to French nuclear power plants, *Journal of Environmental Radioactivity*, Volume 87, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 246-259, ISSN 0265-931X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2005.12.002. Von Herzen, R. P., M. J. Cordery, R. S. Detrick, and C. Fang (1989), Heat flow and the thermal origin of hot spot swells: The Hawaiian Swell revisited, *J. Geophys. Res.*, 94(B10), 13783–13799, doi:10.1029/JB094iB10p13783. [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XwZ9o.png