http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004.jpg

For July 2003, the difference between Mauna Loa (20 N) and the South Pole (90 S) data is 3-4 ppmv. According to the satellite measurements, it is 3 ppmv
For May 2003, the difference between MLO and SPO data is 6-7 ppmv. According to the satellite: 4 ppmv
One need to take into account that the satellite measurements have a lower measurement accuracy , compared to the land based ones (+/- 0.1 ppmv)

The seasonal variations near level out if one takes the yearly averages. Only a (small) variation around the trend, mainly caused by (ocean) temperature variations remains.

See further the seasonal variation with altitude already known by Bert Bolin in 1970, which is only for the NH, as the SH shows far less variation (less land/vegetation):

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg

Caption: Figure 3:2 Amplitude and phase shift of seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 at different altitudes, calculated from direct observations by harmonic analysis (Bolin and Bischof, 1970).

Does this support Beck’s paper on historic CO2 measurements? No, most of the old measurements had an accuracy of +/- 3% = +/- 10 ppmv. Near all seasonal differences over the globe are within that range.

Further, as the AIRS people say:

The big picture is that CO2 sources and sinks are in the planetary
boundary layer. Global circulation of CO2 occurs in the free
troposphere. Thus, PBL is local whereas free troposphere is
international.

Becks data are almost solely in the PBL, where a lot of sources and sinks are present (5% of the atmosphere) while the base stations (and now the satellites) measure either at ground level with a good mixing with the free troposphere, or in the mid-troposphere (representing 95% of the atmosphere).

As I read this again, does it lend support to Beck’s paper on CO2 measurements?

I’ve been thinking the same thing. Dr. Beck’s paper was attacked almost as viciously here as Viscount Monckton’s. Based on that fact alone, I suspect that Beck’s conclusions were pretty accurate.

randomengineer, I’ve found a generic rebuttal to the predictions of the Union of Concerned Scientists [and to climate alarmists in general]: click

What’s the seasonal variation as measured at Mauna Loa?

What part of water vapor being the strongest greenhouse gas do you think the AGW crowd does’t understand?

You have no case!

Very interesting. I noticed that the southwest desert is in the dark area.
I wonder why?

While I think a few anti-missile weapons are necessary against accidental launches and the possibility of a nutty leader, any more than 20 or so might spark an arms race. Besides, the most important thing to a politician is his LIFE. Nuclear weapons can certainly threaten that. Why do you think we have had no major wars since WWII where 50 million died.

death’s shadow

Takes a dreadful fear,
death’s shadow here,
to still the dogs of war.
Our rulers dear
would send us there
and shed not many tears.
But let their lives be threatened
by say, a nuclear weapon,
and suddenly it is clear:
Peace ain’t so bad after all.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/atmosphere/data2.html

“Global Reflected Shortwave Solar Radiation – Shortwave radiation is visible light—in this case, sunlight. This satellite image shows sunlight reflected from the earth back into space. Green and blue areas show light penetrating the atmosphere; white and beige indicate areas where light reflects back into space. This picture was constructed from images gathered over a one-month period during March 2000. Source:CERES instrument team”

“anna; that link to albedo is not from 2000, but has been active since 2000;”

The link may be active still, but the map shown has a caption that says it is from a month in 2000. I could not find any link to more recent maps.I will try again once the link works for me again, since it does not now.

Since you like nuts, I feel I should warn you about rancid pecans. Licking dirt would be preferable, IMO.

To my knowledge. this project was canceled in 2004.

That is why amature astronomers like myself are stepping in and doing the science that NASA should be doing.