I suspect it is pretty accurate. They would have to take care to monitor any nearby volcanic emissions. CO2 concentrations are less near the poles and higher in certain places due to biologic activity as well. I'm not sure where there might be a better place than Mauna Loa, perhaps, Haleakala on Maui http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haleakal%C4... which certainly has fewer emissions. With the prevailing winds and care, I would think that Mauna Loa would be a good place but not perfect.

There are many older measurements of CO2 that are all over the ball park that leave me with some increased doubt about the supposed stability of CO2 prior to human emissions of CO2. Also plant stomata data indicate CO2 concentrations are far more variable than ice core data suggests.

Mauna Loa is not the only place they take these measurements. It is just the most famous. The measurements taken there are in agreement with measurements from many other sites around the world, proving the volcano does not skew the data. Also proving that volcanoes are not a major source of CO2 in the air.

The design process that Charles Keeling used to set up the Mauna Loa observatory is the gold standard for careful experimentation and error analysis - it's used as a teaching example worldwide. Look it up on the web and read the reports, including the ongoing cross-calibration checks, before you presume to know enough to question its accuracy.

Actually, despite the volcanoes being present scientists have actually determined this area to be an ideal spot to measure CO2 concentrations due due minimal external influences on these readings. Anthropogenic induced global warming is real. The science exists.

Yes, I think they can be considered accurate. They can handle volcano levels. Indeed, taking the measurements there allows it to be seen that the global warmers are wrong about their volcano claims, trying to blame them for the pause.

sampling is taken from all types of terrains to build an average picture. all emissions have increased, and rained in poison to the oceans. cause is debatable, but problem is real

it's fairly accurate and goes up by about 2.5 per year

Atmospheric Co2 levels taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory have shown Co2 levels increasing since they were first measured in the 1950's, but just how accurate can they be since they are taken in the vicinity of active volcanos that spew millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere each year? Should this data be scraped because it is clearly flawed and the "science" restarted?