The claim
According to an encyclopedia from 1890, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere was 0.04 percent - the same as today.
Our conclusion
Drilling in Antarctica clearly showed that the CO₂ content of the atmosphere at that time was not 0.04 percent, as stated in the encyclopedia from 1890, but could have been at most 0.029 percent.
Maybe you still have an old encyclopedia somewhere, even if it's only a few decades old.
Take a look through it; you will be amazed at how much information lasts forever, while other points are constantly being corrected. That's not surprising, because that's how science works: very few dogmas, but constant self-control and corrections - otherwise dictionaries would never have to be republished. And now we have an encyclopedia from 1890 that says that the CO 2 content of the atmosphere is 0.04 percent, as high as it is today.
But the value cannot be proven to be correct, also because the measurement methods back then were still very inaccurate.
The claim
A sharepic has recently been circulating again that was actually not faked: It shows a real excerpt from “Meyer's Conversation Lexicon” from 1890:

“ Research means effort, but it is always rewarded ,” the descriptive text begins, and in a text message accompanying the sharepic it also says “ Co2 value 1890 and 2022. Nothing has changed. “
Just two quick comments:
- Research is not taking a 132-year-old dictionary and assuming without further examination that the text is still valid
- The sharepic was already distributed , the current CO 2 proportion in the atmosphere has now reached a record high: 420 ppm (0.042 percent)
Is that actually there?
The value was not changed with image editing software, but was actually there, as you can see, for example, on the pages of the “ Retro Library ”:

The problem with previous measurement methods
If you go by books alone, it becomes problematic anyway, since, for example, in “ The Great Conversations Lexicon for the Educated Classes ” from 1851 it says that the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is 0.0004 to 0.005 of the volume (0.04 to 0 .5 percent) – a very large range!
This is because at that time it was not yet known how carbon dioxide got into the atmosphere and exactly what influences had an impact on the measurement results. For example, in summer the values are completely different than in winter, and on the coast you get different values than in the big city.
At that time, very different values were measured depending on the location and time of year, which is why the “Meyers Conversation Lexicon” from 1890 apparently simply used the lowest value measured at that time.
But the lowest value is still as high as today's value!
Correctly. So we have to find a method that allows us to determine the values at that time. Is that possible? Yes!
In the 1990s, drilling was carried out in Antarctica for the first time in order to measure the CO₂ concentration in the air at that time in the trapped air bubbles. Antarctica is also a suitable place for this because it is far away from any industrial emissions, so the measurement results cannot be falsified by the factory next door.
And how high were the values at that time?
Through these measurements it was found that the values over the past 800,000 years never exceeded 290 ppm (0.029 percent) , and that the values have only been rising continuously since the beginning of the 20th century. Of course, ice drilling is not the only method to measure 2
There are various sources for the measured values at that time, here for example a scale from NASA showing the measured values of the past 800,000 years:

The dramatic increase in values since the beginning of industrialization is clearly visible.
Here are the measurements from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) on Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

Are today's measurements better?
Yes.
Hawaii and at the South Pole since 1950 .
The advantage of measurements at the South Pole should be mentioned here: although most CO₂ is generated by industry in the northern hemisphere, the measured values would then be higher, for example in the Arctic, than they actually are globally.
The position in Antarctica produces lower measurement results because it takes longer for the CO₂ produced in the northern hemisphere to spread there. This then ensures that these results global , not regional, in nature.
Conclusion
It is a bit naive to rely on the statement of a dictionary that was written 132 years ago, at a time when there were no precise measurement methods. Today's measurement methods are much more accurate, but not yet perfect. Nevertheless, the results show that the man-made increase in carbon dioxide actually exists.
Drilling in Antarctica clearly showed that the CO₂ content of the atmosphere at that time was not 0.04 percent, as stated in the encyclopedia from 1890, but could have been at most 0.029 percent - the values never rose higher before industrialization.
If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:
📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.
Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!
* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )

