04-24-2017, 03:15 PM
I have read them, and for the most part I am a firm believer in the scientific method.
"Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995). "
Whenever the media lists the "highest co2 concentrations ever recorded" it's always on Mauna Kea. Who is doing the peer-review on the Mauna Kea data that is kept versus the obvious "influence from the volcano" data that is "edited"?
Is it impossible that Co2 levels exist somewhere between "obvious" and "not obvious" influence from the volcano?
"Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995). "
Whenever the media lists the "highest co2 concentrations ever recorded" it's always on Mauna Kea. Who is doing the peer-review on the Mauna Kea data that is kept versus the obvious "influence from the volcano" data that is "edited"?
Is it impossible that Co2 levels exist somewhere between "obvious" and "not obvious" influence from the volcano?