4 ms·
>For the first time in human history — not recorded history, but since humans have existed on Earth — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts per
by apo 7y ago
>For the first time in human history — not recorded history, but since humans have existed on Earth — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts per million, reaching 415.26 parts per million, according to sensors at the Mauna Loa Observatory, a research outpost of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency.
I find the tone of these articles very counterproductive. The article hyperventilates over the number, but fails to treat it as a scientific result - one that's open to question by anyone.
Case in point: like most articles on this topic this one totally ignores the fact that the Mauna Loa station lies just 4 miles from an active volcano. Active volcanos spew CO2 into the atmosphere naturally.
Given these simple facts, how can this observatory's data be trusted? That's an obvious question every single person reading the article should have.
Nevertheless, you have to dig for the answer. Here's an explanation:
> ... The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level.
> ...
> Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-...
But even this article is vague about how interference from volcanoes is scrubbed.
The politicization of the issue of human-induced climate change has wrecked our ability to discuss this as the scientific phenomenon that it s. This leads to the very antithesis of science: facts that can never be questioned.
- stirbot 7y agoThis clever thought is common enough to have a page on Skeptical Science. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.ht...
- apo 7y agoUnfortunately, that page says nothing about the corrections to the data that are required for the close proximity to active volcanoes. Again, it's a very obvious question that's simply brushed aside by most sources. I'd be interested in finding just one that talks in any meaningful way about the algorithm used to correct the data from Mauna Loa specifically.
- WhompingWindows 7y agoPoliticization is not isolated to climate change, nor is the bastardization/twisting of truth and facts. It seems every viewpoint (flat-Earth, anti-vaxx, essential oils, Goop, climate denialism, Creationism, pro-life, etc.) is amassing its own set of "facts" and "truth" and the lack of moderation and discussion across the aisle is worsening. I point the blame at social media, cable news, clickbait, headlines, sensationalism, and general human nature towards tribes, othering, and basic psychological weaknesses. While I laud scientific and writing efforts to be less sensational and more truthful, it seems our primate minds are incapable of rationality on a society-wide scale.
- wallace_f 7y agoAre you implying you're immune to this? I personally take responsibility to use less energy and combat climate change. But in my experience, critically analyzing the alarmism, doomsday propaganda, science and economics which question the narrative can quickly hit you with personal attacks and awful demonization.