3 ms·
That chart switched from ice core to volcano data in 1958 which is why there is the sudden huge shift. Also, an active volcano is an interesting place to do CO2
by User23 5y ago
That chart switched from ice core to volcano data in 1958 which is why there is the sudden huge shift. Also, an active volcano is an interesting place to do CO2 observations given that volcanoes may well be the largest natural CO2 emitters on the planet. In any event I virtually never see any intelligent discussion of the subject, just cherry-picked data followed by disparaging anyone who might merely express doubt, let alone disagreement. That may well be effective for establishing partial consensus, but it’s not a particularly good way to increase knowledge and understanding.
Edit: Responses like child’s being a case in point. Anyone that opens with “So…” and follows up with a straw man or even a complete non sequitur such as in this case is not contributing to the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity.
Edit: As for CO2 sensors mine has been sitting in the mid 300s for the decade I’ve had it.
- walrus01 5y agoSo your theory is that the hundreds of climatologists who've peer-reviewed co2 sensor data/papers based on information from mauna loa have all wilfully disregarded the existence of the volcano and its gases? That's interesting.
- unlikelymordant 5y agoYou can buy a co2 sensor right now, go outside and measure very similar readings. Is that cherry picking too?
- Gravityloss 5y agoA lot of things to fact check your arguments. But CO2 measurements done in multiple places agree to a rising trend. Where did you get your information from?
- jtsiskin 5y agohttps://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html Here you can view a globally distributed average. Or click “animation”. This is not “cherry picked” Ironically your anecdote at the end is a great example of irreverent cherry picking.
- hcknwscommenter 5y agoYou should get your CO2 sensor checked, or move it to a place that is sampling outside air. If you have only seen cherry-picked data and have not seen intelligent discussion (and such discussion is something you really want to have), then I suggest you read the IPCC reports and participate in discussions regarding the IPCC reports. Your comment about the CO2 observation station on the active volcano is difficult to evaluate. I have never come across any convincing evidence that this matters. Have you?