Recently we’ve been discussing products from the AIRS satellite instrument (Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder) onboard the Aqua satellite. There has been quite a bit of interest in this because unlike the satellite temperature record that goes back to 1979, until now we have not had a complementary satellite derived CO2 record. We are about to have one, and much more.
Click image to see a slide show with this graphic in it (PDF)
I wrote to the AIRS team to inquire about when the satellite data on CO2, and other relevant products might be made public. All that has been released so far are occasional snippets of data and imagery, such as the short slide show above.
Here is the response I got from them:
Thank you for your interest in the AIRS CO2 data product.
We are still in the validation phase in developing this new product.
It will be part of the Version 6 data release, but for now those of us
working on it are intensively validating our results using in situ
measurements by aircraft and upward looking fourier transform IR
spectrometers (TCCON network and others).
The AIRS CO2 product is for the mid-troposphere. For quite some time
it was accepted theory that CO2 in the free troposphere is
“well-mixed”, i.e., the difference that might be seen at that altitude
would be a fraction of a part per million (ppmv). Models, which
ingest surface fluxes from known sources, have long predicted a smooth
(small)variation with latitude, with steadily diminishing CO2 as you
move farther South. We have a “two-planet” planet – land in the
Northern Hemisphere and ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Synoptic
weather in the NH can be seen to control the distribution of CO2 in
the free troposphere. The SH large-scale action is mostly zonal.
Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he
scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
We have just had a paper accepted by Geophysical Research Letters that
will be published in 6-8 weeks, and are preparing a validation paper.
We have global CO2 retrievals (day and night, over ocean and land, for
clear and cloudy scenes) spanning the time period from Sept 2002 to
the present. Those data will be released as we satisfactorily
validate them.
I suggest you Google “Carbon Tracker” for some interesting maps
generated using model atmospheres and data for CO2 sources. It shows
the CO2 weather in the lowest part of the atmosphere.
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.
———-
AIRS Team
With the suggestion of using the Google “Carbon tracker”, some readers might look at this response as a “dodge”. I don’t see it that way at all. Why? Because they are actively engaged in proving the instrument by doing a series of aircraft based measurements to validate the data the instrument on the spacecraft is seeing.
For example, read this paper from them:
First Satellite Remote Sounding of the Global Mid-Tropospheric CO2
These graphics show how hard they are working to validate the data from in situ measurements using airborne flask samples sent to a lab spectrometer:
…and the results of the flask sample measurements:
Read more about this here in this paper (PDF)
Also if you read between the lines in their response to me, particularly this paragraph:
Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he
scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
We have just had a paper accepted by Geophysical Research Letters that
will be published in 6-8 weeks, and are preparing a validation paper.
I’d say that waiting that 6-8 weeks for the paper and supporting data will be well worth it. The working title of the upcoming paper is: “Satellite Remote Sounding of Mid-Tropospheric CO2” and the lead author is Moustafa T. Chahine.
Good things come to those who wait.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, that paragraph about being at variance with accepted values jumped out at me immediately. I don’t see a conspiracy here. It sounds like science being done with great attention to detail. Wouldn’t want to confuse the science work being done with what administrators or politicians say or do. I don’t doubt that as their studies and data become published it may cause quite a stir.
Yet more reading to do…
Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he
scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
Wow…Just wow.
I find it extremely disturbing that the abstract (first paragraph) of the AIRS paper you linked above states:
“Human activity has increased the concentration of the earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide, which plays a direct role in contributing to global warming.”
How can they be fair and unbiased with this presupposition guiding their efforts? The rest of the paragraph looks more like a hypothesis that their research will attempt to prove.
REPLY: look at the date on the paper. I think they’ve learned a few things since then, as indicated in the response to me. – Anthony
I note with interest that the highest water vapor concentrations are around the tropics. Water vapor in addition to being a greenhouse gas is a temperature limiting mechanism for the atmosphere. As the heat energy goes up, more energy is absorbed by water vapor than is reflected in any thermometer increase. A psychometric chart shows why, it’s called latent heat. http://www.truetex.com/psychrometric_chart.htm However, for those who can’t read the chart, there is a handy calculator: http://www.issi1.com/corwin/calculator/vapor.html
I made this argument before but sooner or later someone is going to get it, simple air temp measurements are not a valid indicator of heat content of the air, only Enthalpy is. Enthalpy counts all heat including that stored in water vapor. 80F in NY is NOT equivalent to 80F in Miami. Just because it may be 100F in Tuscon, Az doesn’t mean it is hotter than 80F in Tampa, FL, it’s not when the RH in Tuscon is 20% (33 Btu/#) and 70% in Tampa (36.5 Btu/#) . Meteorologists and Engineers know this, clearly Hansen does not or choses not. Any claim that the planet is getting hotter based on temperature measurements alone is specious.
REPLY: Well said, or in simpler terms, “its the heat AND the humidity” – Anthony
Encouraging.
With regards to your comment dscott, I have been thinking for some time now that temperature is inappropriate and that things would be much simpler to understand if they were rephrased in terms of energy density (thermal kinetic energy) . Temperature by itself is confusing because so much depends on the context (the temperature of what?) Energy density avoids that confusion. The Maths and understanding in general are much simpler (in my opinion) when phrased in terms of energy and energy densities.
I am going to go enjoy a can of mixed nuts in honor of this major development in global climate theory.
If it doesn’t agree with the climate models, how long will it be before it’s suddenly discovered to be wrong and in need of adjustment?
Just like the 3,000 Argo buoys, the expendable BathyThermograph data, the satellite temperature data, and the land based temperature record?
Max
I am sure the climate modellers will find some way to claim that this new data means AGW is even worse than they previously thought….
Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
An interesting statement from which the more paranoid amongst us could infer that any results/papers that comply with AGW do not have to undergo rigorous validation.
Max (11:55:57) :
“If it doesn’t agree with the climate models, how long will it be before it’s suddenly discovered to be wrong and in need of adjustment?
Just like the 3,000 Argo buoys, the expendable BathyThermograph data, the satellite temperature data, and the land based temperature record?”
I suppose that is exactly why they are trying to validate the data before going public.
Not to have the same fate. Seems fair enough to me, and the deadline they give is reasonable.
From the link, “These processes are not adequately represented in the
current three-dimensional chemistry transport models used for projection of future
concentrations of atmospheric CO2.”
There’s a mouthful right there.
Dan McCune (11:06:39) :
OTOH, in the slides they mention that H2O is the main greenhouse gas twice.
The only dates I see in the papers are on the images and references, and some of the latter are quite recent.
Interesting times ahead. Oh boy, just what we need. 🙂 (Smilies disabled? Yay!)
It takes considerable courage to stand up like Galileo and speak against the established religion. There have been calls to revoke professional credentials, people have been fired, and war crimes trials have been demanded for the heretics.
Rigorous validation? You Bet!
Your career and the future of your family depends on you being 100% correct before you say that the King has no clothes.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
It would be nice if science could once again operate free of political interference.
Fortunately the ARGO buoys people broke through the interference(if there was any) and got their story out. This research looks really promising.
I agree, waiting is good in this instance, let them complete, without interference.
We’ll have to see.
Jon,
A better analogy might be Luther and his ’41 sentences’.
This lead me to here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/tseries.php?type=mr#imagetable
Looks to me like it is in rough agreement with what we see in the traditional Mauna Loa sawtooth graph.
Let’s be nice, folks, these are the same guys that published that Arctic sea ice reductions are due to winds, not temperature. It takes a lot of guts to challenge Gore et al’s public relations campaign.
The satellite data has been scrutinized ad nauseum for decades by the AGW proponents because they don’t agree with their preconceived notions. Now the
AIRS data are being scrutinized because they don’t agree with the AGW proponents preconceived notions… do I smell a rat?
dscott: Not too long ago, I ran across a recently published paper that dealt with atmospheric enthalpy. Unfortunately, I didn’t save a copy. So there is one out there, probably more. I had my head into the Smith and Reynolds SST data at the time and I can’t recall the conclusions of that paper. With my HVAC background, I remember thinking, Of course, but that’s as far as that goes.
This reminds me of the paper the guy wrote on the chemical analysis of CO2 concentration. It struck me that he showed varying concentrations with time and location. What this means (to me anyway) is that the well mixed theory may be in the toilet. I suspect that the 50 year residence time that we hear of from the AGW college of cardinals of any individual molecule is bogus. I would be willing to wager that the residence time would vary from minutes to maybe a couple of years and not much beyond that. Interesting indeed.
We’ve waited for this that long.
So, let’s be pacefully. The walls of Jericho didn’t fell by one trumpete, instead
by the effect of the sum of all trumpetes.
Or how about ‘Pink Floyd’ – ‘Another brick in the wall’…
… we will need quite some more …
…What’s really well mixed ? At least, not CO², NOR temperatures,
hummmh, four years ago, my – very personal – projection for CO² was:
The peak will be around 2020,- with an expected timelag to global surface temperatures, then it will go downwards. Skipped that allready, will be – possibly – within the next 3/5 years.
Regards
Klausb
Klausb
If you look at cryosphere today last two days 28-29 july looks like its starting to
freeze up extent and thickness (white thick ice) could be = end of AGW LOL
I hope their aircraft measures differences in altitude too. Other aircraft measurements eg,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W
have shown that there is a significant difference with altitude (high at low altitude and low at high altitude) as well as spatially but nevertheless the mantra of well-mixed CO2 still dominates the literature despite the complete dearth of evidence for it. I’m continually amazed that so many scientists just accept such raw assumptions without checking. Anyway, while measurements at 38000 feet (ie large jet cruising height) and the surface might very well have similar values, there is likely a bathtub shape in between because mother nature wants her carbon dioxide near the ground where it is needed: Not only is it produced at the surface, it dissolves in rainwater. So any significant CO2 further up may have been dumped there by aircraft. If so, then having just two measurements – surface and mid-trop won’t tell the full story. The CO2 hotspots in the AIRS plot (taken at jet cruising height) certainly seem to concentrate over tourist areas, not industrial zones. However time and the proper scientific method will tell, eventually.
Just maybe, they will show the water vapour feedback isn’t what is claimed. Maybe, even negative.
Now that would be a torpedo below the waterline (pun intended) for AGW.