The U.S. Supreme Court, June 30, 2022, in a 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. EPA denied the EPA’s authority to enact sweeping regulations for greenhouse gases that would “decarbonize” American energy under the Clean Air Act.
We should not rely on estimates of human CO2 from fossil fuels to calculate atmospheric CO2. These data can only be used for the very broadest estimate of trend direction. This is not meant as a critique of the long and diligent curation of these fossil fuel numbers by the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, nor critique of the works of Friedlingstein et al. These curators must work with the data they are given. Over the years many of the countries submitting fossil fuel data have been unreliable for many different reasons, for example Nigeria, Soviet Union, Iran, Venezuela, OPEC just to mention of a few of the largest suppliers. As I write this, Israel is supplying natural gas to Egypt, which uses some and supplies it to Syria, which supplies it to Lebanon which is now supplying a large percentage of natural gas to the EU. Then there is the 4 to 6 quarts of oil that has been in every car and truck and many industrial machines on the planet for the last 100 years, most of which is never burned. At least, Friedlingstein et al attempt to estimate bunker fuels which can be stored for long periods.
If we look at the graphical data from the link thankfully supplied by A. Huijser and Nullschool.net,
this surface CO2 information is based in a very elaborate GEOS-5 model by NASA Goddard center. This model is not from a right wing think tank or climate skeptics. These are some of the strongest proponents of AGW. Yet, what we see in these data is that in most cases the highest concentrations of CO2 at the surface are found where population is low and fossil fuel use is lowest. And these areas of higher concentration make up more than 80% of the Earth’s surface area. Most of that area is over water and ice. This strongly suggests that humans and fossil fuels are not increasing CO2 concentration.
Secondly, we should not rely on estimates and assumptions that pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration was stable around 290 ppm. Measurements of CO2 in ice have been shown to have unacceptably high error rates (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420318300574be ) and for years now Professor Murry Salby has pointed out the error in ice core proxy data. Mr. G.S. Callendar, who calculated the early assumptions of CO2 trend, has been shown to have “cherry-picked” his data points to fit his AGW theory.
And the compilation by Ernst George Beck of the thousands of honest, independent measurements of CO2 concentrations does not support the theory of a stable CO2 trend. Beck’s work is apparently ignored by IPCC et al.
In other words, statements such as the currently in vogue “50% increase in CO2 due to human emissions” are not based on reliable data and should be discarded.
Is it a coincidence that the highest surface CO2 concentration in Europe follows the Rhine river, the highest volume of river water flow in Europe, north to the lowlands, wetlands, rivers and marshes of Netherlands and Belgium and then across the English Channel there are 100 meter high white cliffs of Dover, the white cliff Seven Sisters of Sussex (photo at the top of this post), and down the coast of English Channel on the continent side are the chalk cliffs of Normandy, France? Not likely to be a coincidence. The Rhine is loaded with decaying biological runoff, saturated with CO2. CO2 is highly soluble in cold water and calcium carbonate (calcite) is more soluble in cold water. The cold Rhine and its estuary system has been carrying high concentrations of dissolved organic and inorganic carbonates for millions of years. It reaches the large surface area of insolated, relatively warmer English Channel and calcite precipitates. It should be needless to say that those carbonate rocks did not come from human produced CO2. However, most of that rock was CO2 that was once in the atmosphere. In fact, humans have been burning carbonate rock for about 12,000 years to make cement, and in that process releasing CO2 back into the air; yet we still have white carbonate cliffs, mines, and caves around the planet.
The oceanic and atmospheric chemistry and physics that produced these huge carbonate deposits around the earth have not stopped. The graphic data at the link provided by A. Huijser and Nullschool illustrates part of that chemistry and physics in operation today. An easy-to-understand review of the carbonate chemistry is provided here by the University of Houston. https://uh.edu/~jbutler/kunming/carbonates.html
It is beyond absurd and irresponsible for people to be penalized by governments for emitting CO2 when the ocean, the arctic and the Antarctic which comprise over 80% of earth’s surface are emitting higher concentration of CO2 than heavily populated areas. The conclusion must be that the penalty is not about the environment, nor about CO2. The penalty is about politics, money and ideology. The historical track record of humans following ideologies is millions of dead humans.
Setting the link below to view CO2 and surface, one would have to willfully ignore that CO2 measured in ppmv by satellite is higher concentration and coming from the ocean, water and unpopulated areas like the Arctic. It is not coming from heavily populated locations with humans and fossil fuel burning.
Keep this site for future reference.
It refutes the AGW theory that human-caused CO2 is causing global warming.
You can put your cursor over Los Angeles, and CO2 measures 409 ppmv. (Brown in the low end of the scale.)
Then put your cursor over the central pacific and it’s 428 ppmv.
And over the Arctic it’s 434 ppmv.
Over the Antarctic it’s 425 ppmv.
At 6 minutes to midnight in Europe 24 June 2022, there is a band of 452 ppmv going north up the Rhine river out to the North Sea and English Channel by the low country around Rotterdam to Bruge, And there is a 452 ppmv CO2 band in central England flowing out River Severn from Gloucester England to Bristol Channel. The highest CO2 concentration in the air at the surface is following the highest volume water flow rivers in Europe, not the population centers.
Look at New York City, Tokyo and heavily populated coastal cities near ocean. The CO2 is coming from the ocean, not from these cities.
“The GEOS data used in this study/project have been provided by the Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.”
“The GEOS data used in this study/project have been provided by the Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center through the online data portal in the NASA Center for Climate Simulation”.
Our political “representatives”, and I use that term very loosely, would be expecting us to pay for this project and “we” supposedly elected them. If this or anything like it happens, such as artificial sun-blocking clouds, then there will be no one left to write it off to best intentions.
A team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe that we can mitigate the worst of climate change with… space bubbles. They’ve outlined a strategy in which a huge raft of bubbles, carefully positioned between Earth and the Sun, would deflect sunlight (and thus heat) to stop further global warming.
“Geoengineering might be our final and only option. Yet, most geoengineering proposals are earth-bound, which poses tremendous risks to our living ecosystem,” a web page dedicated to the solution reads. “If we deflect 1.8 percent of incident solar radiation before it hits our planet, we could fully reverse today’s global warming.”
The bubble array would be made of inflatable shields of thin silicon or another suitable material, according to the team. Thebubble cluster would be placed in outer space at a Lagrange Point, where the Sun’s and Earth’s gravitational pulls create a stable orbit. The researchers also said that if the plan becomes a reality in the future, the completed array would be roughly the size of Brazil.
They admitted that one of the main concerns with their proposal would be the logistics of fabricating a large film, transporting it into space, and then unfolding it to form the bubble raft. They suggested fabricating the spheres in outer space to minimize shipping costs.
“[The] bubbles can be intentionally destroyed by breaking their surface equilibrium, this would make the solar geoengineering solution fully reversible and significantly reduce space debris,” the MIT researchers wrote in a statement.
They also pointed to the difficulties of maintaining the integrity of the bubble shield. “Effective replenishment rate will be studied to ensure the shield maintains its size, together with strategies to guarantee a smooth end-of-life transition.”
This isn’t the first space-based solution proposed to block the Sun in some way. In 2017, a study suggested an Earth-sized shield to stop solar flares from messing with our communication systems.
But why go to such extremes (which surely have unforeseen risks and consequences)? The MIT researchers described the proposed space bubbles as something to supplement other climate change mitigation efforts, but it is still a speculative plan, and other solutions currently exist.
If the political will, funding, and technology is available for these high-tech solutions, the same should be possible for much more reasonable solutions, like putting a stop new oil and gas drilling projects.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we only have a a jarring three-year deadline to curb our emissions and stop climate disaster. Our current fossil fuel infrastructure is enough to push us over that edge, and we can prevent that by keeping the oil in the ground and working to decarbonize our systems.
People in the U.S. are already suffering the consequences of years of emissions. Some of the largest water reservoirs on the West Coast and in the Southwest are drying up. Several states are experiencing a dangerous heatwave right now, and cities all over the country are implementing water restrictions due to widespread drought.
We don’t exactly have the time to tinker around in space, hope that it works, and then continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Enough with the fear and climate BS. Vote your politicians out of office. No doubt they funded the study or similar study in your neck of the woods.
What could go wrong? The next ice ball planet earth in the next, great ice age accompanied by extinction of all life on Earth except a few deep sea creatures. All thanks to the actions of “scientists” such as these and those who fund them or do nothing to stop them.
The so-called “scientists” apparently neglected to read the study showing 16% to 19% error in CO2 measurements from sub-zero degree C ice, as in arctic and Greenland ice core drillings, an error larger than all human CO2 emissions. They base their estimates, theories and climate models on these bubbles-in-ice measurements and assume CO2 concentration was stable around 290 ppm in the pre-industrial world, even though that claim contradicts their tree ring and similar proxy studies. (Trees and plants do not grow so well in low CO2 concentrations.)
What about the well-know Little Ice Age (16th to the 19th centuries), ya know, when George Washington crossed the Delaware river to surprise the British troops sent by King George to force the revolutionary colonists to pay his tax on tea, and carnivals were held on the frozen Thames through London and the canals of Holland? Do these “scientists” imagine that CO2 concentration was NOT increasing dramatically as the planet dramatically warmed after that Little Ice Age,? Well, unfortunately, they do. They tell us that CO2 concentration has increased 50% since those pre-industrial Little Ice Age days, but they neglect to mention that most of the CO2 increase occurred in the rapid warming that immediately followed the Little Ice Age, more than 100 years before SUV’s.
Net zero caveat emptor. Time to remove our so-called green politicians. All of them.
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.”
I include the U.S. federal government bureaucracy, and especially the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc., DOJ, FDA, CDC, EPA and their equivalents in some states in the category of lawless. And it is a shameful fact.
The January 6 witch hunt being held in the U.S. Congress is an example of lawlessness, following the terrible, now infamous tradition of Democrats in two failed, lawless impeachment trials. Like those impeachment witch hunts, the Representatives, Senators, prosecutors and witnesses should be on trial and American voters know that. Meanwhile the deep state criminals who produced and enabled the fake evidence walk free. Justice has been turned upside down.
Instead of prosecuting the perpetrators of the obvious and now proven 2020 vote fraud, a committee of the U.S. Congress is producing propaganda at taxpayer expense against some of the people who, within their rights, protested the 2020 vote fraud, meanwhile some of those protestors are still jailed political prisoners without due process of law without a chance of a fair trial in Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, that witch hunt committee of Congress and politicized federal so-called “investigation and justice” agencies ignore and hide instigators, including FBI and other clandestine operators, as well as organized perpetrators of violence who were bused in undercover and embedded with righteous protestors. Not a word about the 4 capitol police officers that day who later committed suicide, or testimony by the police officer who spoke to the young woman military veteran only seconds before she was point-blank murdered inside the capitol building, or the refusal by both Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s two sergeants at arms to accept National Guard troops previously approved by President Trump for that day. January 6 was an obvious false flag attack by the same people who instigated and perpetrated the fake impeachment and the summer of George Floyd violence prior to the 2020 election. It is all part of their insurance policy against a second Trump administration.
And not a word about the 50 top federal intelligence and security agency bureaucrats who publicly stated only days prior to the 2020 election that the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake, all with security clearance to know that the laptop was real and would influence the result in 2020 election. They are all part of the insurance policy.
Government today is a dirty business. It is past time for voters to vote them out.
Ron Clutz over on his blog Science Matters provides excellent commentary on this same subject.
Richard Feynman frequently reminded us, “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” (Feynman, 1965)
In the 2 years following the June 15, 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano, the natural environment removed more CO2 than the entire increase in CO2 concentration due to all sources, human and natural, during the entire measured daily record of the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA/Scripps Oceanographic Institute (MLO)May 17, 1974 to June 15, 1991. Then, in the 2 years after that, that CO2 was replaced plus an additional increment of CO2.
The Pinatubo Phase I Study (Bromley & Tamarkin, 2022) calculated the mass of net CO2 removed from the atmosphere based on measurements taken by MLO and from those measurements then calculated the first and second time derivatives (i.e., slope and acceleration) of CO2 concentration. We then demonstrated a novel use of the Specific Impulse calculation, a standard physical calculation used daily in life and death decisions. There are no theories, estimates or computer models involved in these calculations. The following calculation is a more conservative demonstration which makes it obvious that human CO2 is not increasing global CO2 concentration.
The average slope of the CO2 concentration in the pre-Pinatubo period in MLO data was 1.463 ppm/year based on the method described in Bromley and Tamarkin (2022). Slope is the rate of change of the CO2 concentration. The rate of change and slope of a CO2 concentration with respect to time elapsed are identical to the commonly known terms velocity and speed.
Converting ppm to mass of CO2. According to MLO, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on June 15, 1991 was 358 ppm. 1 ppm CO2 in air = 7.76 GtCO2. Thus 358 ppm * 7.76 GtCO2 = 2778 Gt CO2 in air on June 15, 1991. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere on June 15, 1991 per MLO was 2778 GtCO2. This is the measured mass of all CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no human residual.
(Note this is not GtC, i.e., gigatonnes of carbon. GtC and GtCO2 are not equivalent. This is GtCO2,, i.e., gigatonnes of CO2. MLO measures micromoles CO2 per mole of dry air, which is ppm, not ppmv. Ppm and ppmv are not equivalent. )
For avoidance of doubt about the method described in Bromley and Tamarkin (2022), here I compare slope (i.e., velocity) which is calculated using only published MLO data is compared to slope (i.e., velocity) calculated in Bromley & Tamarkin (2021):
MLO began reporting daily CO2 data on May 17, 1974 and on that day reported 333 ppm. Not including May 17, there were 6238 days between May 17, 1974 and June 15, 1991.
MLO velocity = (358 – 333 ppm)/6238 days = 0.004008 ppm per day
Bromley & Tamarkin velocity = 1.463 ppm per year / 365 days = 0.004008 ppm per day
On June 15, 1991, the velocity of 2778 Gt CO2 = 1.463 ppm per year * 7.76 GtCO2 per ppm = 11.35 GtCO2 per year. Then 11.35 GtCO2 per year divided by 365 days per year = 0.03 GtCO2 per day. On June 15, 1991 net global average atmospheric CO2 velocity was 0.03 GtCO2 per day. This is the measured daily rate of change of total atmospheric CO2 concentration from all sources on June 15, 1991.
On April 22, 1993, GtCO2 velocity was 0.62 ppm per year. Then 0.62 * 7.76 GtCO2 per ppm = 4.81 GtCO2 divided by 365 days = 0.0132 GtCO2 per day. On April 23, 1993 net global average atmospheric CO2 velocity was 0.0132 GtCO2 per day. This is the measured daily rate of change of total atmospheric CO2 concentration from all sources on April 22, 1993. CO2 concentration had decelerated rapidly since June 15, 1991. CO2 velocity continued to decline after April 22, 1993.
June 15, 1991 was the start of the major Pinatubo volcanic eruption and April 22, 1993 was the date of maximum deceleration in net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration after Pinatubo, reported in the daily measurement record of MLO.
t = 677 days from June 15, 1991 to April 22, 1993 (not including April 22.)
Initial velocity u = 0.03 GtCO2 per day
Final velocity v = 0.01 GtCO2 per day
Acceleration a = (v-u)/t
a = (0.01 – 0.03)/677 days
a = -2.95 * 10-5 GtCO2 per day per day
The net force F on a mass equals the mass times the acceleration of the mass. (Newton’s 2nd law of motion. F = ma)
As shown above, the net mass of CO2 in the atmosphere on June 15, 1991 per MLO was 2778 GtCO2.
F = 2778 GtCO2 * – 2.95 * 10-5GtCO2 per day per day = – 0.082 Newtons
F = the breaking power or force the environment exerted on the net CO2 mass in the air in response to the surface cooling that followed the Pinatubo eruption. The negative sign indicates the vector direction of the force. In other words, CO2 was being removed from the atmosphere.
Impulse J = Force * time or J = Ft
J = – 0.082 Newtons * 677 days = – 55.5 Newton seconds is the standard unit for specific impulse.
The impulse calculation tells us whether a car has enough braking force to stop before hitting the wall, or enough force to take the rocket into orbit before it runs out of fuel, or, as in the analogy in the Phase Pinatubo report (Bromley & Tamarkin, 2022), enough force to accelerate the loaded 747 to liftoff velocity before reaching the end of the runway, or enough force to overcome addition of human CO2 to air.
The above calculation for Jn is for the total mass of net global CO2 in the atmosphere. Next, we want to compare that Jn to the Jh for the human-produced CO2 component. But, unfortunately we only have estimates based on theoretical assumptions and dubious sources for the human CO2 component. Therefore, instead of using these theories and estimates, we will now calculate an amount of CO2 that must be larger and is clearly larger than the human CO2 component, that is, a hypothetical not-to-exceed amount of human-CO2 is created. For avoidance of doubt, this not-to-exceed amount will be more conservative than in Bromley and Tamarkin (2022).
MLO began reporting daily CO2 data on May 17, 1974. On that day, MLO reported 333.38 ppm. On June 15, 1991, MLO reported 358 ppm. 358 minus 333 = 25 ppm increase in total CO2. This increase includes all CO2 in the atmosphere from all sources, human and natural. There is no residual human fraction.
25 ppm * 7.76 GtCO2 per ppm = 194 GtCO2 increase in CO2
For this comparison, attribute that entire increase in MLO CO2 since the daily record began to humans. This amount was measured by MLO and we know this amount exceeds the actual human CO2 component.
The average velocity for the pre-Pinatubo period in the MLO data set is 1.463 ppm per year. Converting that amount to GtCO2 we have 1.463 * 7.76 GtCO2 per ppm = 11.35 GtCO2 per year. For this comparison, assume this entire amount is due to humans.
11.35 GtCO2 per year divided by 365 days per year = 0.031 Gt “human” CO2 added per day. Assume that human emissions did not slow following Pinatubo, even though total CO2 was decelerating precipitously.
“human” CO2 mass m = 0.031 Gt “human” CO2 per day * 677 days = 21.05 Gt “human” CO2 added post Pinatubo.
On June 15, 1991, the velocity u of 215 GtCO2 = 1.463 ppm per year * 7.76 GtCO2 per ppm
= 11.35 / 365 = 0.031 GtCO2 per day.
Hypothetically, on April 22, 1993, 677 days later, final velocity v of “human” CO2 was the same 0.031 per day. But to be more conservative in this comparison, let v = 0.041 GtCO2 per day. In other words, for this comparison, we are letting “human” CO2 grow faster than total CO2 was growing prior to the eruption even though on April 22, 1993 total CO2 was declining sharply.
Thus post-Pinatubo acceleration a of ”human” CO2 = (v – u)/t =0.01/677 = 1.48 * 10-5 GtCO2 per day per day
F = ma (Newton’s 2nd law of motion. F = ma)
F = 215 GtCO2 * (1.48 X 10-5 GtCO2 per day per day) = 0.0032
“Human” CO2 specific impulse Jh = 0.0032 Newtons * 677 days = 2.17
Jh = 2.17 is the specific impulse for our hypothetical “human” CO2 emissions.
2.17 for hypothetical “human” CO2 emissions
-55.5 for natural CO2 removal from atmosphere
– 25.6 / 1 is the ratio. The minus sign indicates the vector direction indicating CO2 absorption. Removal of CO2 is over 25 times addition of CO2 by hypothetical “humans” even when “humans” is conservatively calculated to include all sources of CO2 in the MLO daily measurement record prior to the Pinatubo eruption.
In this conservative calculation, based entirely on measurements (not theory, not models, and not estimates), Earth’s environment demonstrated the capacity to absorb more than 25 times the not-to-exceed amount of human CO2 emissions at that time. The units drop out of the comparative calculation to yield a dimensionless 25 times ratio. (The units for J and F are not precisely correct in this novel use of the specific impulse calculation which would usually include a distance. It is important to keep the units the same in the comparison, as is done here.)
During the global cooling event in the 2 years following the Pinatubo eruption, CO2 concentration decelerated rapidly. Following that 2 year period, in the next 2 years CO2 accelerated more rapidly than it had declined, reaching an average CO2 slope which exceeded MLO-measured slope for the period prior to the June 1991 Pinatubo eruption. The maximum force of the environment to both absorb and emit CO2 could be much larger than the 25 times human emission and could occur much faster. We do not know the maximum force or specific impulse. But it is very safe to infer from this result that human CO2 emissions are not an environmental crisis.
If a reason exists that the natural environment responds to human CO2 in a significantly different way, e.g., the commonly asserted belief that the environment absorbs half of human CO2, then the reader is invited to put forth that theory. The calculations and data presented here disprove that theory.
Among other questions, the questions shouting to be answered are: where did that CO2 go? And, where did the recovery CO2 come from?
We are working from experiment first, sometimes called first principles. We are looking for theory that explains the experimental result. We reject the opposite process which is unfortunately used at great detriment to science, life, societies, and economics. We are not looking for data to fit a priori theory, such as the IPCCs pre-conceived objective of human-caused global warming. We are looking for theory to explain our experimental result.
The data and graphs produced by MLO also show a reduction in slope of total CO2 concentration following the June 1991 eruption of Pinatubo, and also show the more rapid recovery of total CO2 concentration that began about 2 years after the 1991 eruption. This graph is the annual rate of change (i.e., velocity or slope) of total atmosphere CO2 concentration. This graph is not human CO2.
Theoretical discussion and conclusion
These are the experiment results. Theory must explain these results, not the other way around.
Bromley and Tamarkin (2022) suggested a theory how this very large amount of CO2 could be absorbed so rapidly into the environment, mostly ocean surface. This experimental result is consistent with Henry’s Law, the Law of Mass Action and Le Chatelier’s principle. In a forthcoming addendum to Bromley and Tamarkin (2022), two additional laws, Fick’s Law and Graham’s Law are suggested additions to our theory explaining this experimental result.
There are several inorganic chemical sources in the sea surface thin layer which produce CO2 through a series of linked reactions. Based on theories asserted more than 60 years ago, inorganic and organic chemical sources and sinks are believed to be too small and/or too slow to explain the slope of net global average CO2 concentration. These results and calculations disprove those theories. Our results strongly suggest that the net CO2 absorption and net emission events that followed the Pinatubo eruption are response and recovery to a perturbation to the natural trend. There is no suggestion in our results or in our theory that long-term warming of SST causes the slope of net global average CO2 concentration. We have not looked at temperatures or correlation statistics between temperature and CO2 concentration because they are co-dependent variables, and the simultaneity bias cannot be removed with acceptable certainty. References to 25 degrees C in Bromley and Tamarkin (2022) are only in theoretical discussion and not involved in any way in our data analysis or calculations. References to 25 degrees C are merely standard ambient temperature, part of SATP, agreed by standards organizations.
When CO2 slope and acceleration declined post-Pinatubo, why was there a recovery to previous slope? What causes the additional offset increase in slope? The decline and the recovery were certainly not due to humans or the biosphere. As we have shown, CO2 from humans and biosphere combined are over an order of magnitude less than the CO2 absorbed by the environment and then re-emitted. That alone should end fears of CO2-caused climate crisis. Where did the CO2 go so rapidly and where did the CO2 in the recovery come from? Our data suggests that in future research we will find a series of other events, other volcanoes, El Ninos and La Ninas, etc. that have similarly disrupted the equilibrium followed by a response and recovery from the environment.
Thoning, K.W., Crotwell, A.M., & Mund, J.W. (2021). Atmospheric carbon dioxide dry air mole fractions from continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow, Alaska, American Samoa and South Pole. 1973-2020, Version 2021-08-09. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML), Boulder, Colorado, USAhttps://doi.org/10.15138/yaf1-bk21 Data Set Name: co2_mlo_surface-insitu_1_ccgg_DailyData. Description: Atmospheric carbon dioxide dry air mole fractions from quasi-continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.