THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF A JULY 2019 EARTHSKY ARTICLE ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE AND CLIMATE CHANGE: LINK: https://earthsky.org/earth/6-things-to-know-carbon-dioxide-co2-greenhouse-gas

THE TEXT OF THE ARTCLE IS PRESENTED BELOW WITH CRITICAL COMMENTARY INSERTED IN ITALIC RED WITHIN BRACKETS AS SHOWN {HERE}.

(1) Scientists say increased CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is causing global temperatures to warm– sea levels to rise – and storms, droughts, floods and fires to become more severe. {False. Scientists don’t say that increased CO2 causes warming. They say that increased CO2 causes a higher temperature. A sustained sequence of increases in CO2 therefore causes higher and higher temperature. This sequence is understood as warming. For example, a sequence of rising and falling CO2 would not cause warming even though the initial change was “increased CO2”.}

(2) The Mauna Loa Observatory has been measuring carbon dioxide since 1958. The remote location and scarce vegetation make it a good place to monitor carbon dioxide because it does not have much interference from local sources of the gas. Occasional volcanic emissions are filtered out. Mauna Loa is part of a global network of air sampling sites that measure atmospheric CO2. In May atmospheric CO2 reaches the peak of its seasonal cycle. In 2019, this peak in May set a record at 414.7 ppm, the highest in 61 years. {What is the AGW relevance of these statistics? We know that atmospheric CO2 is rising at an annual time scale over a long period of time and and that this persistent rise in atmospheric CO2 is how global warming is understood in climate science. What is the significance of the May 2019 CO2 concentration in this context? And if it does have a global warming interpretation why does the chart below not show an anomalously high temperature or decadal warming rate for May 2019? Or is it just a case of looking for high values to scare people with? }

(3) The broad consensus among climate scientists is that increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing temperatures to warm, sea levels to rise, oceans to grow more acidic, and rainstorms, droughts, floods and fires to become more severe. {Correct. This is indeed the correct way to phrase the theory that continually rising atmospheric CO2 causes warming. This is not some kind of a “broad consensus” thing, it is in fact the heart and soul of AGW theory along with the theory that fossil fuel emissions cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to rise.}

(4) The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is accelerating. For decades, carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing every year. In the 1960s, Mauna Loa saw annual increases around 0.8 ppm per year. By the 1980s and 1990s, the growth rate was up to 1.5 ppm year. Now it is above 2 ppm per year. There is abundant and conclusive evidence that the acceleration is caused by increased emissions, according to Pieter Tans, senior scientist with NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division. { The abundant and conclusive evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are caused by fossil fuel emissions is a creation of circular reasoning and bad statistics. If you look at the data without an AGW bias and without first assuming what you have set out to prove, and if you do your statistical analysis correctly, you will find no evidence that atmospheric composition is responsive to fossil fuel emissions. Here are the links to the details of this issue: LINK#1: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ LINK#2: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/31/the-carbon-cycle-measurement-problem/ LINK#3: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/10/a-monte-carlo-simulation-of-the-carbon-cycle/ }

(5): Scientists have detailed records of atmospheric carbon dioxide that go back 800,000 years. To understand carbon dioxide variations prior to 1958, scientists rely on ice cores. Researchers have drilled deep into icepack in Antarctica and Greenland and taken samples of ice that are thousands of years old. That old ice contains trapped air bubbles that make it possible for scientists to reconstruct past carbon dioxide levels. The video below, produced by NOAA, illustrates this data set in beautiful detail. Notice how the variations and seasonal “noise” in the observations at short time scales fade away as you look at longer time scales. {that’s nice but it has noting to do with AGW theory}.

(6): CO2 is not evenly distributed. Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others. For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas. The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations. This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically. The first space-based instrument to independently measure atmospheric carbon dioxide day and night, and under both clear and cloudy conditions over the entire globe, was the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Read more about this world CO2 map. The OCO-2 satellite, launched in 2014, also makes global measurements of carbon dioxide, and it does so at even lower altitudes in the atmosphere than AIRS. Despite the patchiness, there is still lots of mixing. In this animation from NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio, big plumes of carbon dioxide stream from cities in North America, Asia, and Europe. They also rise from areas with active crop fires or wildfires. Yet these plumes quickly get mixed as they rise and encounter high-altitude winds. In the visualization, reds and yellows show regions of higher than average CO2, while blues show regions lower than average. The pulsing of the data is caused by the day/night cycle of plant photosynthesis at the ground. This view highlights carbon dioxide emissions from crop fires in South America and Africa. The carbon dioxide can be transported over long distances, but notice how mountains can block the flow of the gas. Carbon dioxide peaks during the Northern Hemisphere spring. You’ll notice that there is a distinct sawtooth pattern in charts that show how carbon dioxide is changing over time. There are peaks and dips in carbon dioxide caused by seasonal changes in vegetation. Plants, trees, and crops absorb carbon dioxide, so seasons with more vegetation have lower levels of the gas. Carbon dioxide concentrations typically peak in April and May because decomposing leaves in forests in the Northern Hemisphere (particularly Canada and Russia) have been adding carbon dioxide to the air all winter, while new leaves have not yet sprouted and absorbed much of the gas. In the chart and maps below, the ebb and flow of the carbon cycle is visible by comparing the monthly changes in carbon dioxide with the globe’s net primary productivity, a measure of how much carbon dioxide vegetation consumes during photosynthesis minus the amount they release during respiration. Notice that carbon dioxide dips in Northern Hemisphere summer. Maps of world and graph showing differing amounts of C02 in August and in December. Image via NASA Earth Observatory. Read more about this image. It isn’t just about what is happening in the atmosphere. {This is all very nice and maybe it helps NASA with the government budget that feeds NASA but it has nothing to do with AGW theory.}

(7): Most of Earth’s carbon – about 65,500 billion metric tons – is stored in rocks. The rest resides in the ocean, atmosphere, plants, soil, and fossil fuels. Carbon flows between each reservoir in the carbon cycle, which has slow and fast components. Any change in the cycle that shifts carbon out of one reservoir puts more carbon into other reservoirs. Any changes that put more carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer air temperatures. That’s why burning fossil fuels or wildfires are not the only factors determining what happens with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Things like the activity of phytoplankton, the health of the world’s forests, and the ways we change the landscapes through farming or building can play critical roles as well. Read more about the carbon cycle. { Most of the earth’s carbon is not in rocks. 99.8%, is in the core and mantle of the earth. About 0.2% of it is here on the crust where we have things like carbon life forms and the carbon cycle and global warming and stuff like that. The carbon cycle is of course a very important part of a pattern that supports life on earth but the theory of AGW, anthropogenic global warming, is the impact of fossil fuel emissions on climate and not about how the carbon cycle drives climate. NASA Scientist Dr. Peter Griffith explains: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/19/vegandiet/ }

COMMENTS BY READERS FOUND AT THE END OF THE SOURCE ARTICLE. AN INTERESTING READ.

1. Steve Browne • a year ago: “The broad consensus among climate scientists is that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing temperatures to warm, sea levels to rise, oceans to grow more acidic, and rainstorms, droughts, floods and fires to become more severe.” To be fair, science is not a consensus activity and many scientists do not agree with the above statement. As a government entity, NASA is a politically-influenced organization. This is not a knock on the quality of their science per se. However, statements like the above go beyond what has been conclusively proven or knowable. In fact, many scientists more honestly say that while CO2 and average global temperatures have been observed to be rising in recent decades, the degree to which this is due to activities of man versus natural variations are not known with the certainty that such absolute statements imply. Even less certain is the correlation, if any, with storms, droughts, floods and fires becoming more or less severe. These claims are predictions based on models, not proven facts.
2. Lauklejs responds to Steve Browne • a year ago: Yes the exact fraction of the rise in CO2 due to man is unknown; but it’s much nearer to 100% than it is to 90% So it’s total distortion to say “degree to which this is due to…man” is pure politics. You might say yes but the emission by nature is of the same order as man’s emission, therefore, it’s unknown. But the science is: the natural sequestration of CO2 is measured as a fraction of the available CO2 and that changes in a beneficial direction with time scales of at least centuries and can change in a detrimental direction with time scales on the order of months. YES NASA is a politically influenced organization–influenced by the Trump administration to lie that the increase doesn’t matter or is too little or no consequence.
3. Steve Brown responds to Lauklejes: Claims that go beyond science or fail to admit to the many uncertainties are not scientific, no matter who is president. Unfortunately, climate science has become the most politicized area of science.
4. Lauklejes responds to Steve Browne: Yes claims should not go beyond science. And since it is a scientific FACT that CO2 has the effect of reflecting IR, all the models are models of REACTIVE and incidental COOLING, by your reasoning, we must accept the zeroeth order model that we’ve just been damn lucky that the warming isn’t 5 degrees instead of 1.5. IOW only the CO2 denier religion has politicized the science.
5. Steve Browne responds to Lauklejes: Yes, the greenhouse effect is a singular fact. It isn’t the be all and end all explanation for Earth’s climate. The Sun, water vapor, clouds, oceans, plants and animals (including man), volcanoes, and much more all interact in incredibly complex ways that scientific research is only beginning to discover and understand. There will continue to be new revelations and revisions of theories, models and predictions. One thing we know from the historical record is that the Earth has been warmer and colder than at present and that the oceans have been higher and lower. Throughout history life has gone on as populations adapt through migration and species adapt through evolution. It’s hubristic to believe that man has the ability to control Earth’s climate and maintain it within some arbitrary boundaries.
6. Lauklejes responds to Steve Browne: No hubris is thumbing your nose at the gods–in this case hubris is thumbing your nose at the laws of science like the law that CO2 is a rapidly absorbing/emitting gas so that its presence has the effect of flat reflecting IR (as opposed to mirror reflecting). The result is the FACT that CO2 accounts for about 45% of the heat reflecting ability of the troposphere and about 100% of the cooling ability of the stratosphere. So the zeroth order model is CO2 warms the troposphere about 5 degrees and cools the stratosphere about an equivalent amount, So the 0.1 model is CO2 causes the weather to be more violent since the cold reservoir is so much colder and closer. IOW just wishing that man can’t pollute the earth is patently bullshit since even ordinary pollution has obvious negative consequences. And ordinary overgrazing has obvious negative consequence.
7. Steve Brown responds to Lauklejes: You seem to be looking for an argument. I’m not sure about what. You keep making up straw man arguments having nothing to do with my OP. So, sayonara.
8. Lauklejes responds to Steve Browne: Yes I know you like straw man style arguments. You seem to say something rational and then seem to say something totally irrational like there is some truth to the gibberish of the CO2 denier religion. So thank you for saying sayonara.
9. Ronald West comes to Steve Browne’s defense and writes to Lauklejes as follows: Liar! You know damn well that NASA has been around long before TRUMP. In fact, it was spawned by one of your demoncrap heroes, to wit, JFK. And anyone with an IQ greater than 90 can see that global-warming is a scam designed by communists to steal our freedom and steal our money. Duh! That’s what communists do. Anyone who believes for one second that humans can change the weather, is just plain STUPID! Regardless of their IQ. I find it so hilarious that when TRUMP is making everything better and putting more money in everybodys’ pockets, even yours, and making America great again, TRUMP gets the blame for everything that is wrong. Things that have been caused by past governments, many of them decades ago. When TRUMP rearranges the map in 2020, even painting parts of California and N’yark RED, NOBODY will believe the rant of communists like you anymore, and after 4 more years of TRUMP unchained, America will be so great again that your Satan the Devil Party (demoncraps), it is doubtful anyone will vote for communism for years.
10. Mike in UK tries to help Lauklejes: Such a complex subject will not always appear clear-cut, but it seems a lot of people commenting here are cherry-picking the part truths and the lack of data in some areas to support their own agenda. Until they’ve put in the time and effort proper scientists have done to reach conclusions, their negative opinions are somewhat irrelevant. I’m always suspicious when someone denies global warming is man made, and then brings politics or religion into their argument as if they are going to change the facts. We had the same problem years ago when CFC’s were first discovered to be causing the thinning of the ozone layer.

VIDEO BELOW: THE TEMPERATURE EFFECT OF THE ATMOSPHERE EXPLAINED WITH MASS BALANCE AND STEFAN’S LAW IN THAT FINE AND REFINED BRITISH ACCENT.