3 ms·

> Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2

> Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm. After water vapour has been removed? What is the effect if water vapour is not removed from the figures? Does this show a different profile or is the profile identical? What was the reasoning for removing the water vapour figures from the readings? Simple line graphs like these don't give the kinds of profiles needed. We need much more comprehensive mapping. Looking at the sites mentioned, there does not appear to sufficient coverage of all environmental areas to give us a clear picture of what is going on. My first question is whether or not the measurements are being affected by the local environment profiles - are there other factors we need to know about the areas in which the measurements are taking place? In other words, are there specific site characteristics that effect CO2 measurements that are not applicable elsewhere. For other untested sites, are there site specific characteristics that would show a higher or lower CO2 profile? You note that the high altitude winds that circle the Pacific Ocean are an advantageous factor for Mauna Loa in determining global CO2 levels. My first question relates to what effects does the Ring of Fire have on these readings and my second would be related to what effects does the circulating wind flows have on these readings. Just looking at the displayed data leaves me with lots of unanswered questions. These are questions that can only be answered by having CO2 monitoring stations located in 1000's upon 1000's of different locations: islands, remote sea buoys, mountain ranges, savannahs, forests, high plains, low plains, continuously circling weather balloons, coastal and internal land mass locations, cities, farming communities, deserts and arid land locations, tropical, sub-tropical, temperate zones. We also need all the other data that will give us a handle on what is happening. For ocean locations, are there dissolved CO2 levels that are affected by changing temperature profiles and is there a atmospheric and ocean transfer of CO2 that affects the readings? Does the plankton population levels change the CO2 levels, is there feedback loops here - positive or negative? There are many more measurements that can be undertaken to give us a better understanding of what is happening. The complexity is very high and we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields to get the information required. As I said, we need comprehensive data to be able to determine what strategies are going to be useful and what will be of no use whatsoever.

skh 8y ago
You are not an expert in this area I presume. You brought up some thoughtful questions and points which could skew measurements. Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Being able to think of possible ways that a measurement might be bad or skewed indicates a likely gap in your knowledge and is not a reflection on the science. Your statement: ...we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields.... paints you as a troll. The only people who think the scientific consensus on climate change is the result of political beliefs and not scientifically sound reasons are of a certain persuasion.
- cs02rm0 8y ago
  Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Yes, but. Look, I'm not an expert in this area and so I have to hold my hands up and say I don't have a clue and have to defer to those who think they do. However, in most other areas of research I find people are able to make a simple, clear case with other factors accounted for in a way that climate change seems to lack. I don't know enough about it to know why, maybe it's just the difficulty in ruling out other factors on one planet. But I feel like I've lost count of the number of times a single dataset like that from Mauna Loa is held up, questioned and then... nothing. Well, nothing but pointing out someone isn't an expert. We should probably do a better job of addressing the questions people have given the importance. Or at least, someone who's an expert should probably do better if they want everyone to buy into the argument.
  - skh 8y ago
    I propose that the single data point perception comes from the media and not the experts. The writers of articles in newspapers and popular media are not necessarily well informed. Reporters cling to the “single data point” it seems to me because it makes it easier to for them to write their articles. I doubt very much that any expert uses a single data point to make a conclusion. In general when I read about a study done by experts in an area outside of my expertise and I quickly come up with possible objections to the conclusion I assume this says more about my lack of knowledge than it does about theirs. A lot of times I read an article about math in a newspaper and something is just plain wrong in the article but explaining to a layman why it’s wromg is not so easy. I don’t know if the same thing is true for climate scientists but I suspect it is. I’m all for people questioning things and wondering why a given conclusion is right. I want though for laymen to use such questions as the basis for furthering their own study and quest for knowledge in that area instead of stopping at the question and concluding the scientists have it wrong.

skh 8y ago

You are not an expert in this area I presume. You brought up some thoughtful questions and points which could skew measurements. Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Being able to think of possible ways that a measurement might be bad or skewed indicates a likely gap in your knowledge and is not a reflection on the science. Your statement: ...we need non-political active cooperation between many different fields.... paints you as a troll. The only people who think the scientific consensus on climate change is the result of political beliefs and not scientifically sound reasons are of a certain persuasion.

cs02rm0 8y ago
Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things? Yes, but. Look, I'm not an expert in this area and so I have to hold my hands up and say I don't have a clue and have to defer to those who think they do. However, in most other areas of research I find people are able to make a simple, clear case with other factors accounted for in a way that climate change seems to lack. I don't know enough about it to know why, maybe it's just the difficulty in ruling out other factors on one planet. But I feel like I've lost count of the number of times a single dataset like that from Mauna Loa is held up, questioned and then... nothing. Well, nothing but pointing out someone isn't an expert. We should probably do a better job of addressing the questions people have given the importance. Or at least, someone who's an expert should probably do better if they want everyone to buy into the argument.
- skh 8y ago
  I propose that the single data point perception comes from the media and not the experts. The writers of articles in newspapers and popular media are not necessarily well informed. Reporters cling to the “single data point” it seems to me because it makes it easier to for them to write their articles. I doubt very much that any expert uses a single data point to make a conclusion. In general when I read about a study done by experts in an area outside of my expertise and I quickly come up with possible objections to the conclusion I assume this says more about my lack of knowledge than it does about theirs. A lot of times I read an article about math in a newspaper and something is just plain wrong in the article but explaining to a layman why it’s wromg is not so easy. I don’t know if the same thing is true for climate scientists but I suspect it is. I’m all for people questioning things and wondering why a given conclusion is right. I want though for laymen to use such questions as the basis for furthering their own study and quest for knowledge in that area instead of stopping at the question and concluding the scientists have it wrong.