![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Njl tredita. Peer reviewers:
Tsilas3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As the time series plot suggests exponential rather than just linear growth of yearly CO2, I suggest that an estimate of this curve be supplied along with the relevant reference. Does anyone know of a reference we could use? Lee De Cola ( talk) 03:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This page seems to demand actual pictures of said "graph". Can somebody please provide them? -- 84.178.200.21 08:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Done!
Jamesg
08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the graph that is shown here using the standard technique of graphical distortion? Please see Edward Tufte's book "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" for a full discription of "lie factors" and how to distort information using graphics.
There is no excuse for using a graph where the baseline has been moved to 310 rather than 0. This serves the purpose of distorting the information and exaggerating the changes in the data by approximately a factor of 5. This is simply biasing the subject and is inappropriate for any balanced and accurate description.
First, please sign your posts using four tildes. Second, I do not see that as a lie factor. Anyone who is seriously examining the graph should note the scales. It would be a lie if the scales were removed - otherwise it just shows a laziness on the part of a reader not to observe these scales. I agree that there is a lot of information around biasing the subject one way or another, but this graph is not - the scale is right there for all to see. 81.100.182.131 ( talk) 11:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it is perfectly acceptable (and indeed recommended) scientific practice to start the axis of a graph at a sensible number. This avoids wasting space and cramming all the data in one part of the graph and leaving the rest blank. Take a look at any scientific journal or even school textbook. Booshank ( talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
66.183.212.147 This graph was used because that is all the data that has been collected. It is not using a technique of graphical distortion - measurements only started in 1958, at 315ppmv; hence the graph starts there. There are many other graphs on atmposheric CO2 levels involving geologically much longer timeframe which use "0" baselines.
As a side note, if you're informed at all about global warming and climate change, you'll know there's no exaggeration required. The facts are shocking enough. Mikesnowcat 66.183.212.147 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The practice of rescaling is common enough in the sciences (despite Tufte's admonition), and its validity depends on what you want to highlight. I will sometimes do as done here if I want to draw attention to details of the annual cycles or the differences between northern and southern hemispheres (the South Pole data are not shown here, though). But if the intention is to highlight the increase over pre-industrial levels -- as seems to be the case here -- then I would agree that the graph should be re-scaled so that zero is the origin on the y-axis. It does NOT involve adding new data. C Stevenson 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
While it is common to rescale, I agree that it can be misleading, but also unnecessary. A more proper way to present this data would be to normalize it, or better yet, present it as a percent change from a baseline value. I found the raw data at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2 If the average CO2 level for the first year with complete data were used as the baseline (1959), then the trend that is desired can be shown without any distortion of the axes. In fact, I think it shows the trend to be even more impressive than what is shown here.-- Jbaylor 20:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am shocked ( well not really ) that this graoh is the one we always see - walking down the hall just barely and I ran into it. This is the graph you would whip out if you wanted to scare the begeesus out of someone who didn't have much of a math/science background ( and a lot who do ). Starting at zero the graph would not be very convincing , unless of course you made it really really really.. narrow. Likewise, going all the way back to 1958 must almost make a climatologist roll on the ground with laughter. ie If there is a seasonal fluctuation, I'll bet there is asseveral other longer term fluctuations - the only question is where and on which fluctuation we are at this point in time. The whole curve would be more interesting if it preceded warming and didn't follow ( hard to be a perdictor when you arrive after the party).
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get error bars on this graph?
The keeling curve is supposed to measure the concentration of CO2 emitted by man in the atmosphere, however, this measurement was done near a volcano which is situated atop one of the biggest volcanic hot spot on earth. One of the major emissions of volcanoes is CO2. Shouldn't this be discussed in this article on the keeling curve. It seems possible that the keeling curve would only be a good measure of the recent volcanic activity in Mauna Loa.
In fact, Mauna Loa is described as the largest active volcano on Earth (Wikipedia). We all know volcanoes emit an enormous amount of CO2. So there are 2 questions: 1. Why on Earth would you strive to measure CO2 levels with the goal of correlating it to human activity, atop one of the largest single natural sources of C02? 2. Can this increase in CO2 concentration be recreated in measurements made elsewhere? For example, let's not make the measurement at Mauna Loa. Let's try another mountain, a non-volcanic mountain. Can this be reproduced?
These questions need to be answered to add credibility to the Keeling Curve.
Question 1: What has been the original hypothesis of Keeling to set up the measurements? Why Mauna Loa? Farhad Taghibakhsh ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
But what you said doesn't sound right. A couple of examples showing the Mauna Loa is not far from anthropogenic contamination: Hawaiian islands have more than 10 active airports with air traffic of (2007): + 36,000,000 passengers (8.9% increase from 2006), + 610,000 tons of cargo (0.9% increase), + 1,000,000 aircraft takeoff and landings (4.7% decrease). See: http://www6.hawaii.gov/dot/airports/publications/cysmallone.pdf The main source of energy for electricity in Hawaiian islands is petroleum, with + 9,000,000 metric tons of CO2 released in 2006. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/hawaii.html Add to this all the ships and motor boats around the islands and all other contamination sources associated with an active touristic and military area in Hawaiian islands (the distance between Mauna Loa and Honolulu is less than 350km). If 350km looks long way away, Kona and Hillo international airports in the Hawaii island are less than 50km away from Mauna Loa Observatory, with air traffic of + 4,800,000 passengers (~9% increase) and + 240,000 aircraft operations in 2007! (same Ref. as above). So, Mauna Loa Observatory cannot be considered far from anthropogenic contamination as you said. Distances were estimated from Google Map. Farhad Taghibakhsh ( talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Justin Lancaster; Feb, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.123.115 ( talk) 10:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to find out when the Keeling Curve made its first appearance. Looks like it was probably:
But I haven't been able to verify that. Kaldari ( talk) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. -- Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit of news, but I malformed the footnote & don't know how to code it correctly. Would someone please clean up after me? TIA. The Sanity Inspector ( talk) 14:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a picture of Ralph Keeling himself while he was working at the field station could be applied to this article?
Price793 (
talk)
21:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Keeling Curve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keeling Curve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keeling Curve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Information in this article seems sparse and the sources do not seem well-utilized. Furthermore, the article is filled with jargon and may serve to confuse the reader by assuming the reader knows more than he or she actually does. The measurements at Mauna Loa are well discussed throughout the article, but the other examples listed in the introduction where the measuring was actually perfected are virtually absent in the rest of the article. Mauna Loa was of course very important in giving the Keeling Curve and its creator scientific legitimacy; however, more information could definitely be given to illuminate how the process came about and the data that was recorded before the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa were taken. Njl tredita ( talk) 03:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Bibliography:
Betts, Richard A; Jones, Chris D; Knight, Jeff R; Keeling, Ralph F; Kennedy, John J (2016). “El niño and a record CO2 rise”. Nature climate change. 6(9): 806-810.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3063
Golden, Barry; Grooms, Jonathon; Sampson, Victor; Oliveri, Robin(2012). “Generating arguments about climate change”. Science scope. 35(7): 26-34. https://search.proquest.com/docview/927534580/fulltextPDF/95967460DCF547C5PQ/1?accountid=11107
Harris, Daniel C (2010). “Charles David Keeling and the story of atmospheric CO2 measurements”. Analytical chemistry. 82(19): 7865-7870. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac10011492
Nisbet, Euan (2007). “Cinderella science”. Nature. 450(7171): 789-790. https://doi.org/10.1038/450789a
Pataki, D E; Ehleringer, J R; Flanagan L B; Yakir, D; Bowling, D R; Still, CJ; Buchmann, N; Kaplan, J O; Berry, J A (2003). “The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial carbon cycle research”. Global biogeochemical cycles. 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001850
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is about the Keeling Curve, but I strongly suggest to nontheless keep a section " Ice core" in the article with some explanations and links to other projects which try to measure CO2 in the atmosphere, since, I guess, most people want rather that the only the Keeling Curve. Even more important is the questions whether more data is collected today! In Micronesia, Himalaja or wherever. User:ScotXW t@lk 17:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Needs graphs to show IPCC high, low, and medium case.
e.g. SHARP DROP IN HALF FOLLOWED BY SLOW STEADY REDUCTION RESULTS IN FREEZING AT CURRENT LEVELS https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/stable_scenario.png
BUT: If CO2 frozen at current levels, doesn't the temperature continue to rise rapidly, as it has been doing at these or lower levels?
Graphs are needed with CO2 levels, high, low, and medium case for CO2 reductions, with projected temperature increase for each, and pointers to likely outcomes globally.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/RCP6_scenario.png — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ocdctx (
talk •
contribs)
00:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Theoretically, carbon dioxide emissions should be abnormally low in part of 2020 because of so much being shutdown (less driving, for one thing). When data for 2020 is available, the article will need to be updated to indicate whether the rate of increase was less than normal. 47.139.46.148 ( talk) 05:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
What is "Curve" in the title capitalised? Shouldn't it be "Keeling curve"? -- Mortense ( talk) 12:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Njl tredita. Peer reviewers:
Tsilas3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As the time series plot suggests exponential rather than just linear growth of yearly CO2, I suggest that an estimate of this curve be supplied along with the relevant reference. Does anyone know of a reference we could use? Lee De Cola ( talk) 03:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This page seems to demand actual pictures of said "graph". Can somebody please provide them? -- 84.178.200.21 08:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Done!
Jamesg
08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the graph that is shown here using the standard technique of graphical distortion? Please see Edward Tufte's book "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" for a full discription of "lie factors" and how to distort information using graphics.
There is no excuse for using a graph where the baseline has been moved to 310 rather than 0. This serves the purpose of distorting the information and exaggerating the changes in the data by approximately a factor of 5. This is simply biasing the subject and is inappropriate for any balanced and accurate description.
First, please sign your posts using four tildes. Second, I do not see that as a lie factor. Anyone who is seriously examining the graph should note the scales. It would be a lie if the scales were removed - otherwise it just shows a laziness on the part of a reader not to observe these scales. I agree that there is a lot of information around biasing the subject one way or another, but this graph is not - the scale is right there for all to see. 81.100.182.131 ( talk) 11:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it is perfectly acceptable (and indeed recommended) scientific practice to start the axis of a graph at a sensible number. This avoids wasting space and cramming all the data in one part of the graph and leaving the rest blank. Take a look at any scientific journal or even school textbook. Booshank ( talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
66.183.212.147 This graph was used because that is all the data that has been collected. It is not using a technique of graphical distortion - measurements only started in 1958, at 315ppmv; hence the graph starts there. There are many other graphs on atmposheric CO2 levels involving geologically much longer timeframe which use "0" baselines.
As a side note, if you're informed at all about global warming and climate change, you'll know there's no exaggeration required. The facts are shocking enough. Mikesnowcat 66.183.212.147 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The practice of rescaling is common enough in the sciences (despite Tufte's admonition), and its validity depends on what you want to highlight. I will sometimes do as done here if I want to draw attention to details of the annual cycles or the differences between northern and southern hemispheres (the South Pole data are not shown here, though). But if the intention is to highlight the increase over pre-industrial levels -- as seems to be the case here -- then I would agree that the graph should be re-scaled so that zero is the origin on the y-axis. It does NOT involve adding new data. C Stevenson 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
While it is common to rescale, I agree that it can be misleading, but also unnecessary. A more proper way to present this data would be to normalize it, or better yet, present it as a percent change from a baseline value. I found the raw data at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2 If the average CO2 level for the first year with complete data were used as the baseline (1959), then the trend that is desired can be shown without any distortion of the axes. In fact, I think it shows the trend to be even more impressive than what is shown here.-- Jbaylor 20:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am shocked ( well not really ) that this graoh is the one we always see - walking down the hall just barely and I ran into it. This is the graph you would whip out if you wanted to scare the begeesus out of someone who didn't have much of a math/science background ( and a lot who do ). Starting at zero the graph would not be very convincing , unless of course you made it really really really.. narrow. Likewise, going all the way back to 1958 must almost make a climatologist roll on the ground with laughter. ie If there is a seasonal fluctuation, I'll bet there is asseveral other longer term fluctuations - the only question is where and on which fluctuation we are at this point in time. The whole curve would be more interesting if it preceded warming and didn't follow ( hard to be a perdictor when you arrive after the party).
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get error bars on this graph?
The keeling curve is supposed to measure the concentration of CO2 emitted by man in the atmosphere, however, this measurement was done near a volcano which is situated atop one of the biggest volcanic hot spot on earth. One of the major emissions of volcanoes is CO2. Shouldn't this be discussed in this article on the keeling curve. It seems possible that the keeling curve would only be a good measure of the recent volcanic activity in Mauna Loa.
In fact, Mauna Loa is described as the largest active volcano on Earth (Wikipedia). We all know volcanoes emit an enormous amount of CO2. So there are 2 questions: 1. Why on Earth would you strive to measure CO2 levels with the goal of correlating it to human activity, atop one of the largest single natural sources of C02? 2. Can this increase in CO2 concentration be recreated in measurements made elsewhere? For example, let's not make the measurement at Mauna Loa. Let's try another mountain, a non-volcanic mountain. Can this be reproduced?
These questions need to be answered to add credibility to the Keeling Curve.
Question 1: What has been the original hypothesis of Keeling to set up the measurements? Why Mauna Loa? Farhad Taghibakhsh ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
But what you said doesn't sound right. A couple of examples showing the Mauna Loa is not far from anthropogenic contamination: Hawaiian islands have more than 10 active airports with air traffic of (2007): + 36,000,000 passengers (8.9% increase from 2006), + 610,000 tons of cargo (0.9% increase), + 1,000,000 aircraft takeoff and landings (4.7% decrease). See: http://www6.hawaii.gov/dot/airports/publications/cysmallone.pdf The main source of energy for electricity in Hawaiian islands is petroleum, with + 9,000,000 metric tons of CO2 released in 2006. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/hawaii.html Add to this all the ships and motor boats around the islands and all other contamination sources associated with an active touristic and military area in Hawaiian islands (the distance between Mauna Loa and Honolulu is less than 350km). If 350km looks long way away, Kona and Hillo international airports in the Hawaii island are less than 50km away from Mauna Loa Observatory, with air traffic of + 4,800,000 passengers (~9% increase) and + 240,000 aircraft operations in 2007! (same Ref. as above). So, Mauna Loa Observatory cannot be considered far from anthropogenic contamination as you said. Distances were estimated from Google Map. Farhad Taghibakhsh ( talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Justin Lancaster; Feb, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.123.115 ( talk) 10:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to find out when the Keeling Curve made its first appearance. Looks like it was probably:
But I haven't been able to verify that. Kaldari ( talk) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. -- Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit of news, but I malformed the footnote & don't know how to code it correctly. Would someone please clean up after me? TIA. The Sanity Inspector ( talk) 14:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a picture of Ralph Keeling himself while he was working at the field station could be applied to this article?
Price793 (
talk)
21:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Keeling Curve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keeling Curve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keeling Curve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Information in this article seems sparse and the sources do not seem well-utilized. Furthermore, the article is filled with jargon and may serve to confuse the reader by assuming the reader knows more than he or she actually does. The measurements at Mauna Loa are well discussed throughout the article, but the other examples listed in the introduction where the measuring was actually perfected are virtually absent in the rest of the article. Mauna Loa was of course very important in giving the Keeling Curve and its creator scientific legitimacy; however, more information could definitely be given to illuminate how the process came about and the data that was recorded before the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa were taken. Njl tredita ( talk) 03:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Bibliography:
Betts, Richard A; Jones, Chris D; Knight, Jeff R; Keeling, Ralph F; Kennedy, John J (2016). “El niño and a record CO2 rise”. Nature climate change. 6(9): 806-810.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3063
Golden, Barry; Grooms, Jonathon; Sampson, Victor; Oliveri, Robin(2012). “Generating arguments about climate change”. Science scope. 35(7): 26-34. https://search.proquest.com/docview/927534580/fulltextPDF/95967460DCF547C5PQ/1?accountid=11107
Harris, Daniel C (2010). “Charles David Keeling and the story of atmospheric CO2 measurements”. Analytical chemistry. 82(19): 7865-7870. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac10011492
Nisbet, Euan (2007). “Cinderella science”. Nature. 450(7171): 789-790. https://doi.org/10.1038/450789a
Pataki, D E; Ehleringer, J R; Flanagan L B; Yakir, D; Bowling, D R; Still, CJ; Buchmann, N; Kaplan, J O; Berry, J A (2003). “The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial carbon cycle research”. Global biogeochemical cycles. 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001850
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is about the Keeling Curve, but I strongly suggest to nontheless keep a section " Ice core" in the article with some explanations and links to other projects which try to measure CO2 in the atmosphere, since, I guess, most people want rather that the only the Keeling Curve. Even more important is the questions whether more data is collected today! In Micronesia, Himalaja or wherever. User:ScotXW t@lk 17:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Needs graphs to show IPCC high, low, and medium case.
e.g. SHARP DROP IN HALF FOLLOWED BY SLOW STEADY REDUCTION RESULTS IN FREEZING AT CURRENT LEVELS https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/stable_scenario.png
BUT: If CO2 frozen at current levels, doesn't the temperature continue to rise rapidly, as it has been doing at these or lower levels?
Graphs are needed with CO2 levels, high, low, and medium case for CO2 reductions, with projected temperature increase for each, and pointers to likely outcomes globally.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/RCP6_scenario.png — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ocdctx (
talk •
contribs)
00:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Theoretically, carbon dioxide emissions should be abnormally low in part of 2020 because of so much being shutdown (less driving, for one thing). When data for 2020 is available, the article will need to be updated to indicate whether the rate of increase was less than normal. 47.139.46.148 ( talk) 05:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
What is "Curve" in the title capitalised? Shouldn't it be "Keeling curve"? -- Mortense ( talk) 12:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)