[Pretzel Logic]

Yes, we should, and we should measure the variation today and take that into account. Your reference shows a chart that does just that. There's about a 5ppm variation across latitudes for CO2 concentration. Not nearly as large as the error bars on the historical data. Not significant.

When you consider that all by itself, the natural variation across latitudes accounts for 7-10% of the trumpeted "rise" in CO2 on the IPCC/NASA charts, that's significant enough to consider it completely dishonest for the IPCC to "lie by omission" in that regard.

Also, I realize the next argument can be taken as straw man, but part of the point of the latest research indicating that "volcanoes emit WAY more CO2 than we keep thinking," is that it has to at least be considered that Mauna Loa's CO2 station sits on the side of the world's most active volcano. That volcano DRASTICALLY impacts the air quality all the way over here on Maui -- both visibly and invisibly -- and causes my wife (and thousands of other people on the island) to have severe asthma flare-ups. But the "experts" are going to tell me that it has "no impact" on the measuring station that sits right next to it. Common sense calls BS on that.

They even state on their website that the volcano has no impact on CO2 readings -- but their proof uses the now-outdated (and severely underestimated) old model of volcanic CO2 emissions. Shows how much the "experts" know, when a layman is more abreast of the latest science than they are.

Incidentally, Mauna Loa's emissions have been increasing for at least the past decade.