I’m going to make a formal post on this later, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion now since many people have been waiting for this paper to be published. For my previous perspectives and replies from authors, see this post here:
An encouraging response on satellite CO2 measurement from the AIRS Team
Hat tip to F Rasmin who writes with a link to the new paper:
Hello Anthony. Is this the awaited paper from the AIRS TEAM? ‘Satellite remote sounding of mid-tropospheric CO2′, published 9 September 2008 at:
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0817/2008GL035022/
REPLY: Yes it is. This was on my list of things to check this week, thanks for the tip! I’ll write it up sas soon as I can read it. In the meantime, feel free to post more comments on it in this thread.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First sentence:
” Human activity has increased the concentration of the earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide, which plays a direct role in contributing to global warming.”
Skimmed this short paper and found nothing earth shattering.
Do these globs of CO2 build up on site (IE from a pollution site like the I-5 corridor) or are they blown in from another source? Was there a bloom of something in the pacific ocean that outgassed CO2 and then it blew onto the western part of the US? Was it then taken up later by the vegetation? I want a loop. I want a loop.
I wonder if ozone http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us follows or leads CO2. I do know this, that blue area of ozone is much bigger than it was this spring.
This is great, and right on time. You’ve got to hand it to the AIRS team. Now let’s see all those pretty pictures.
“The top panel shows monthly mean AIRS retrieved CO2 mixing ratios.” So the top panel is not a daily snapshot.
This article compared measured data to Chemical Transport Models (CTMs) and they indicated some disappointment in the accuracy of the CTMs. If only the GCM folks would have this same perspective (humility?) when evaluating their global temperature results against their models.
Also, the GCMs still use a constant level of CO2 assumption the last I heard, so this should give them some pause to see that CO2 levels vary over a 12-13 PPM range (eyeballing estimate)
The observed “major final stratospheric warming event over the northern polar region in April 2003” is attributed to a “reversal of the 10hPa wind direction in the polar region and an increase of the stratospheric polar tempurature” (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 3.3. [13]. This warming event distorts and eventually breaks up the polar vortex resulting in less downwelling of stratospheric air into the upper polar trophosphere which allows more mixing with northern mid-latitude air which is laden with C02 and decreased 02[14].
Although the beginning premise states otherwise, C02 is not indicated here as the cause of the warming event, only as a result and marker of a weather event caused by climate conditions. WMO indicates two catalysts: (1) a reversal of the 10hPa wind direction; and (2) an increase of the stratospheric polar tempurature. No cause is indicated for the latter.
Increased C02 concentrations of 2ppmv and reduced 02 levels of 20ppbv over five days “following the event” are observed due to mixing of northern mid latitude air in the polar upper trophosphere. AIRS C02 retrieval value appears to be mostly in the observation of C02 variability due to weather systems.
Interesting stuff
I wonder how the those rather low concentration measurements around ANTARCTICA tally with the way the atmospheric CO2 record is spliced into the Siple Dome ice core CO2 record?
Hey, I can see the plume created by my SUV exhaust!
Serious, what’s the motivation behind these measurements? Possibly to measure CO2 source and sinks on a macroscopic scale?
It is still five year old data.
Where is the new continuously registered data?
They only say they use the July 2003 data because they are the most studied, or something like that. It is incredible that in the computer age we cannot get continuous data to the present from this publicly funded facility.
I am getting an error when trying to access the airs web page. I hope it is a temporary glitch.
p.s. makes me suspect that CO2 is falling and they do not know how to present that to the orthodoxy
Pamela,
Try to play nicely—it’s not all about you, you know. The childish repetition of “I want a loop” does your public image no favours. :>) No, you made me laugh.
What you say next arouses my curiosity. I don’t know which is the “blue area of ozone” you refer to, but that there might be a chemical connection between ozone and CO2 is to me a new idea.
I understand that ozone is produced in the stratosphere by the action of UV on O2 molecules, thus interfering with the UV before it hits the earth’s surface and puts us all at risk of nasty consequences for our health. In other words, it’s not so much the existence of an ozone layer that protects us as the production of it, if that makes any sense. If anything, it seems to be the oxygen that’s sacrificially protecting us.
Since, during the winter, sunlight is absent, ozone production naturally ceases and the atmospheric stock of it diminishes, producing the famous ‘hole’, which attains its maximum extent at the end of the austral winter.
I understand that destruction of the ozone layer by the alleged man-made ozone “destroyers” such as CFCs cannot be demonstrated.
I am open to correction, as always. Is there another connection to CO2?
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
pps.
And where is Mauna Loa? right in the middle of the darkest part.
The Antarctic peninsula seems to be starved of CO2 – in comparison to the remainder of the entirety of “creation”.
The largest desert in the world, with the most dessicated atmosphere should surely have a greater concentration of this “well mixed gas”.
/in jokes
I was hoping for a plot of variation with altitude. Maybe next time.
I hope I’m wrong but I am getting that niggling feeling again… where is all the recent data?
Pretty interesting. Looking at the graphics, it seems that CO2 levels over mid-latitude N Hemisphere are higher than predicted, but S Hemisphere and especially Antarctica are lower than predicted. Just looking at the colors, you might think that these differences might help explain the lack of apparent warming in Antarctica and the more apparent warming in the N Hemisphere. But the differences are still pretty small, in the range of 1 ppbv, so the color differences probably don’t really explain much. I’m certainly not expert, and I’ve only recently discovered Wattsupwiththat, via Climate Daily — great weblog.
Where is the average monthly CO2 for the Earth?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for the continental USA?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for China?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for India?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for Australia?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for England?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for Mauna Loa?
Where is the average monthly CO2 for other CO2 collecting sites?
Why won’t NASA come clean?
What do they have to hide?
We should have all that data for the last five years, including the comparisons with the Mauna Loa record.
Is the Keeling Curve an artifact?
We won’t know until the REAL data is released.
Quick correction on the last comment: the differences are in the range of 10 ppbv, on either side of a mean value.
Richard,
I don’t know why wanting to see a “loop” would hurt anyone’s image. I want to see a loop too. A loop that shows worldwide CO2 over the last five years. We have been waiting a long time for this. We paid for it. Where is it? I WANT A LOOP!!!
I watched the animation.
1) It may be just me, but it looks to me to be like clouds, i.e., not moving but created ( for clouds it is through the change in temperature/humidity) in situ.
2) Where does the southern hemisphere get all this CO2 excess over average? Volcanos? Does anybody have a volcanos map link?
CO2 emitting rocks?
A lot of unanswered questions. The link still does not work.
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/CarbonDioxide/
Sorry. Not sufficiently caffeinated at the time of previous posting.
The second joke should read:
The largest desert in the world, with the most dessicated atmosphere should surely be suffering a rise in temperatures due to this “well mixed gas”.
How I wish the science truly was settled.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/
The CO2 southern hemisphere follows the carbon monoxide animation above.
No CO2 on the main page, but it is there:
Updated products still coming soon. There is a July 2008, though.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA11194_modest.jpg
Lots of changes in southern hemisphere. Range of values reduced since 2003.
desiccated