Here you go -- not quite back to 1712, but is 1744 good enough for you?Leland33 wrote:Again, I’m still an “on the fence” believer about the cause of climate change.sugarmagnolia wrote: “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”
To me it’s simple, climate change seems to exist and it’s time to plan action.
However I DO THINK the chart has a couple problems.
1. The chart start at 160ppm on the left - why not start it at 0ppm? Change the scale?
2. The 1950 spike misrepresents the actual data - the thickness of the yellow line is at least 1000 years based on the 400,000 year base.
3. I would like to see a much smaller CO2 range from say 1712 to 2018. Techically data levels could have dropped below 300ppm especially since the founding of the EPA in 1970.
We have direct measurements of CO2 only since 1958, when Keeling set up the observatory on Mauna Loa (readings in red). The blue data points come from ice core measurements.