As most of the seasonal variations level off in yearly averages, the differences due to latitude and altitude disappear, except for the delay in upward trend between the NH and SH, as the ITCZ hinders the exchange of air masses.

Thus it would be interesting to see the picture of the average over the full year 2003, it should show the main regions where the largest continuous natural sources and sinks are located, and the regions with the largest human contribution…

I cannot see an obvious correlation from the maps available,

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_regions.cfm

with the AIRS map. One would need recent activity world maps, which is not something that is being provided as far as I can see.

pretty interesting stuff:)

“As for Mammoth Mountain, it releases up to 140 metric tons per day of CO2, which is a maximum of 0.05 million tons per year. The lower end of volcanic CO2 estimates is 130 million tons per year, so Mammoth Mountain when it’s most active is about 0.03 percent of the global total. Would that be significant for the U.S.?”

Considering that the color scale is 20ppm /380ppm makes 5% differences.

Volcanic vents must be in the rest 95% , since they probably are in a steady state. The plot shows differences from the steady state. Nevertheless it would be good to have a world map of volcanic venting and activity. For example, in the 2008 plot on the AIR site ( I gave a link above) there is red in the antarctic. That can only be volcanic new.

First, overall CO2 sinks in the polar regions and outgasses at the tropics.
Second, the CO2 gets blown along the latitudes, and hence the heavily forested latitudes (Canada / taiga and tropical rainforest) have lower CO2 than the desert latitudes.
Third, there is outgassing over the upwelling ocean spots (I think).
Fourth, there has been quite an increase of CO2 since 2003.
I want to know what the January patterns are like.

Right now I’m sure that there is a HUGE dynamic balance going on. Sea life loves CO2 (calcifying organisms) and terrestrial vegetation loves CO2 (photosynthesis) and I’m sure that, just as you want money to move to create wealth, so too with the CO2. Far more there than meets the graphs.

“Am I wrong, they seem high downwind of these?”

At least for Europe they are if anything upwind.

“Young, growing forests fix carbon”

Yes, and that is what is strange, since taiga grows quite slowly, much slower than tropical forest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7644553.stm

Virgins SpaceShipTwo may carry instruments to measure ‘greenhouse’ gases for the NOAA.

Am I wrong, they seem high downwind of these?

“Levels are generally low over forest areas, but it is a bit odd that they are lower over taiga than over equatorial rainforests and even odder that they are lower over cerrado/caatinga scrub than over the adjoining amazonian forest.”

Young, growing forests fix carbon. Not that its an unimpeachable source, I saw a National Geographic film recently claim the taiga was more important in this respect than the rest of surface vegetation combined, yet it comprises 1/3 of the total in biomass. I’d think the first notion connected except the growth rate is intuitively too low.

As for Mammoth Mountain, it releases up to 140 metric tons per day of CO2, which is a maximum of 0.05 million tons per year. The lower end of volcanic CO2 estimates is 130 million tons per year, so Mammoth Mountain when it’s most active is about 0.03 percent of the global total. Would that be significant for the U.S.?

The delay smacks of intra-office politics, which in government is insurmountable. Could be any reason, even just unreasoning conservatism, quashed existing work, sloth, etc.