From this NASA press release I’ll have more on this later. The timing of this release is interesting.
› Play animation (Quicktime) | › Play animation (Windows Media Player)
› Related images and animations
WASHINGTON – Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua spacecraft.
Moustafa Chahine, the instrument’s science team leader at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., unveiled the new product at a briefing on recent breakthroughs in greenhouse gas, weather and climate research from AIRS at this week’s American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. The new data, which span the seven-plus years of the AIRS mission, measure the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere–the region of Earth’s atmosphere that is located between 5 to 12 kilometers, or 3 to 7 miles, above Earth’s surface. They also track its global transport. The product represents the first-ever release of global carbon dioxide data that are based solely on observations. The data have been extensively validated against both aircraft and ground-based observations.
“AIRS provides the highest accuracy and yield of any global carbon dioxide data set available to the research community, now and for the immediate future,” said Chahine. “It will help researchers understand how this elusive, long-lived greenhouse gas is distributed and transported, and can be used to develop better models to identify ‘sinks,’ regions of the Earth system that store carbon dioxide. It’s important to study carbon dioxide in all levels of the troposphere.”
Chahine said previous AIRS research data have led to some key findings about mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide. For example, the data have shown that, contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere, but is rather “lumpy.” Until now, models of carbon dioxide transport have assumed its distribution was uniform.
Carbon dioxide is transported in the mid-troposphere from its sources to its eventual sinks. More carbon dioxide is emitted in the heavily populated northern hemisphere than in its less populated southern counterpart. As a result, the southern hemisphere is a net recipient, or sink, for carbon dioxide from the north. AIRS data have previously shown the complexity of the southern hemisphere’s carbon dioxide cycle, revealing a never-before-seen belt of carbon dioxide that circles the globe and is not reflected in transport models.
In another major finding, scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for how water vapor responds to a warming climate.
“AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated — in fact, more than doubled — by water vapor,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.
“The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth’s climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth’s climate system,” Dessler said.
Originally designed to observe atmospheric temperature and water vapor, AIRS data are already responsible for the greatest improvement to five to six-day weather forecasts than any other single instrument, said Chahine. JPL scientists have shown a major consequence of global warming will be an increase in the frequency and strength of severe storms. Earlier this year, a team of NASA researchers showed how AIRS can significantly improve tropical cyclone forecasting. The researchers studied deadly Typhoon Nargis in Burma (Myanmar) in May 2008. They found the uncertainty in the cyclone’s landfall position could have been reduced by a factor of six had more sophisticated AIRS temperature data been used in the forecasts.
AIRS observes and records the global daily distribution of temperature, water vapor, clouds and several atmospheric gases including ozone, methane and carbon monoxide. With the addition of the mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide data set this week, a seven-year digital record is now complete for use by the scientific community and the public.
Animation of the 3-D transport and distribution of water vapor as measured by AIRS from June through November 2005. Image credit: NASA › Play animation (Quicktime) | › Play animation (Windows Media Player)
enlarge imageFor more on AIRS, see http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/ .
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why the hot spot in Western US, when there’s relatively nothing there?
http://www.worldmapsonline.com/SatPosters/NorthAmericaNight.htm
Why the hot spot in South America (end of animation and this link)?
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/AIRS_CO2_Data_files/droppedImage.jpg
What’s there besides volcanoes?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563975/Amazing-pictures-The-lightning-storm-engulfed-erupting-volcano.html
Here’s another image, with obligatory scary CO2 increase superimposed.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA11395.jpg
Funny thing, though, is that the hot spots are nowhere it would intuitively seem that they should be.
Also, notice that if you put a straight edge up to the peaks of the CO2 curve, there actually seems to be a relatively consistent deceleration in the rate of increase. I wonder why they don’t talk about that, eh?
ASIDE – move over man-bear-pig
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_saKQ607KvoI/SrsGO-PKtXI/AAAAAAAADWg/5lMH0nU749w/s1600-h/bearsharktopus.jpg
foinavon (15:18:10) :
A doubling of the primary warming by the water vapour feedback is perfectly consistent with empirical and theoretical understanding and observation.
Unless of course the feedback is actually negative, which is what the
best long term record indicates. Humidity is notoriously difficult to
measure of course, and there are known errors with sonde instrument changes. But the long term record with best available corrections applied
indicates drying aloft.
I suspect that the RAOB data (which I’m not familiar with; can you clarify a source for this please) concerns relative humidity and not absolute humidity.
The RAOB data indicates humidities aloft have fallen in both relative and absolute terms. The analysis indicates that surface humidities have risen
while upper levels are drier. This situation actually enhances cooling.
There’s pretty incontrovertible evidence that absolute atmospheric humidity is risen dring the last several decades. In fact it rises and falls as the atmospheric temperature rises and falls (e.g. it’s decrease is measured following major volcanic eruptions); see references in my post [foinavon (14:17:30) ]
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
Go back and look at figure 5 indicating the drying above 800mb.
You missed this in the paper:
“The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations”
Here is what the author had to say about the paper and it’s reception:
(including quotes by Dessler.)
http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/04/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/
As a former Weather Forecaster with some experience, knowledge and expertise… I’m curious- Has anyone determined exactly what the CO2 animation is purporting to represent — is it…
– 7 years of CO2 ‘hot spot’ accumulation locales?
– Any ‘measurement/metric’ scale of what the light/dark brown colorations are purported to be representing?
– Do CO2 dark brown ‘Hot Spots’ purport to represent high ppm CO2 concentrations?
– What is the time scale of the ‘hot spots’ purported to be? One hour; one day; week; month; 7-years of accumulated data?
Since the Northern Hemisphere’s Jet Stream oscillates in sinusoidal waves both in the areal and vertical extents, it’s quite unclear of what the animation is purporting to represent – especially since the ‘Hot Spots’ don’t appear to conform to the normal sinusoidal paths but rather seem to be somewhat more ‘zonal’ in nature;
I’m sorry, without a more meaningful context, metrics and time scales, it’s mostly propaganda… or am I missing something?
AK (12:27:02) :
. . . “The fact is, temperatures confirm the model predictions, water vapor data confirm the model predictions, sea level rise confirms the model . . .”
Whoa! There is a difference between a model having a good fit (which is easy to do with a multitude of variable) and a model providing reliable predictions. Only in fits, do the models match observations. Even in Scenario B, the famous 1988 prediction of Hansen has been dramatically above observations. Of course, later models could be improved, but as Lucia has detailed, more recent models have not provided reliable forecasts on temperatures. The jury is out on water vapor which has more quantification and causation issues, but it is just as likely if not more likely that observations are contradicting model predictions. (Dessler’s paper is the not first nor the last on this issue.) Polar ice observations are not following model predictions. (If the observations are consistently “worse,” then consider the likelihood that the model is unreliable.) The sea level has been doing what it has been doing since the demise of the LIA – no useful insight has been provided by models. In fact, in the last seven years, sea level increases have lowered from a 3.3 pace to a 2.7 pace, and has been quite flat for three years, quite contrary to model predictions. Of course, one should not get excited about a three year trend in climate; so let’s look at a 15 year trend: for 15 years stratospheric temperature trends are counter to model predictions. In essence, model predictions have not been reliable in the near term, but I am willing to wait for the long term analysis of predictions – just don’t do any foolish policy moves in the meantime.
I see a few obligatory ad-hominem attacks on Dessler in this thread.
So it may interest you all that Roy Spencer thanks Dessler in his blog today for inviting Spencer to speak at an AGU session.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/little-feedback-on-climate-feedbacks-in-the-city-by-the-bay/
He even calls Dessler “a super nice guy”!
Cognitive dissonance!
telecorder (20:09:26) :
“I’m sorry, without a more meaningful context, metrics and time scales, it’s mostly propaganda…”
THANKS! I was trying to figure out how to say that.
syphax (20:13:42) :
“I see a few obligatory ad-hominem attacks on Dessler in this thread.
So it may interest you all that Roy Spencer thanks Dessler in his blog today for inviting Spencer to speak at an AGU session.”
Earlier, I said that Dressler appeared to be inconsistent in his estimates of water vapor multiples of CO2 warming effects. This observation isn’t ad hominem.
He is due credit for his invitation to Spencer.
Jason (14:54:47) :
Yeah, outside of New York city and maybe a few other huge metropolitan areas in the United Stats of America, every last railway has been a disaster, not only in costs, but in fuel consumed per passenger mile. The reason is that Americans do not want to use public transportation, and it is absolutely our right to make that choice. The government signs onto these big projects with big ideals and dreams and time after time after time it is billions spent and few passengers forever subsidized by everyone else’ tax dollars. If that is not bad enough, all the money going to upkeep for the failing trains and subways, causes the government to be unable to do necessary upgrades to ground transportation. Sometimes the government even deliberately sabotage ground commuting routes trying to force the populace to take their predetermined mode of transport, to the point of canceling profitable bus routes and changing lighting patterns.
Sorry, but trains are a touchy thing. Not that I have ever been harmed in any direct way, just the idea of the government running rip-shod over the population in backroom deals for commuter train lines that the population does not want rubs me the wrong way.
I zeroed in on this:
““The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth’s climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth’s climate system,” Dessler said.”
“virtually certain” I detect some hedging here.
“Several Degrees’ is intentionally vague for obvious reasons.
“unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth’s climate system”
I think I found it, it emerged from inside my dusty college Physics textbook!
Lets see what the Stefan-Boltzmann law says about the black body radiation for a few scenarios:
(note 1 deg C = 1 deg K)
Present global average = 287 deg K (Wikipedia)
2 deg C increase = 289 deg K = 2.8167% increase in black body radiation
3 deg C increase = 290 deg K = 4.2472% increase in black body radiation
4 deg C increase = 291 deg K = 5.6926% increase in black body radiation
5 deg C increase = 292 deg K = 7.1529% increase in black body radiation
In order for the black body radiation to increase, it means the earth is absorbing more of the sun’s radiation and converting it to broad band IR, which implies a decrease in albedo, but this can be influenced by other factors such as a (hypothetical) net ice melt. The Stefan-Boltzmann black body radiation is a very strong negative feedback mechanism, which is raised to the fourth power of the black body temperature and helps to regulate temperature in both directions.
“in the next century”
Who is going to be around in 100 years to call NASA on the carpet for this?
I say it’s Chicken Little.
“WASHINGTON – Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, …
[emphasis mine]
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.
Wait a minute.
On closer examination they do not even make any direct connection between CO2 and water vapor. All they do is correlate vapor and temperature. They make no mention whatever of clouds vs. ambient vapor.
In other words, there is no “corroboration”. There is nothing at all, and nothing we didn’t know already. And no mention of what has occurred over the last decade-plus. All the essential questions are entirely unanswered.
evanmjones (22:08:04) :
Wait a minute.
On closer examination…
You’re the Holmes to out Watson!
I thought someone would have posted these 2 videos by now. But I do see some have talked about Roy Spencer.
Part 1
Part 2
Not a scientist, just an interested amateur so don’t feel the need to pounce if I get something wrong.
So they make the claim that CO2 is not all that well-mixed, instead calling it lumpy despite the fact that the variances only seem profound because of the color scale used in the graphs. Why do that? Perhaps because it helps to distract us from another conclusion we could draw from this study (if it is indeed accurate, who knows?). They claim that man-made Co2 causes extraordinary warming. We know from this study that the concentration of CO2 varies some but not much. However, actual temperatures vary widely. If man-made CO2 concentrations are roughly the same everywhere, why don’t temperatures everywhere all show increases of the same or at least similar percentages? In some places it is cooler, in some much warmer. To me this says that other factors influence weather and climate much more than CO2 .
Perhaps the “lumpy argument” is meant as an attempt to explain this global variance in temperatures. Some one could use this study perhaps to argue that CO2 is such a sensitive climate modifier that even a difference of a few ppm makes a huge difference in temperature and then adjust the data to make it agree.
foinavon (12:07:42) :
“If some forcing (solar, greenhouse gas or whatever) results in a 1 oC warming of the atmosphere, and the resulting water vapour feedback adds an additional x of warming then the total warming from the primary forcing+ water vapour feedback is something like 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 …
which is 1/(1-x). “
The series only converges if |x| is less than unity, in which case, it is actually a negative feedback, in traditional systems theory (because log|x| is less than 0). This causes a lot of confusion when people with control systems background read the climate literature. Climate scientists have abused the traditional nomenclature, and term something which amplifies as “positive feedback” and which attenuates as “negative feedback”. For control systems analysts, a positive feedback is a destabilizing input, which must be counteracted by a stronger negative feedback or you will get instability.
Roy Spencer spoke today, December 16th, 2009, at the Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco.
“It was standing room only…close to 300 scientists by my estimate” he says.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/little-feedback-on-climate-feedbacks-in-the-city-by-the-bay/
And it was about clouds and negative/positive feedback.
————————————————
I’m curious if Anthony would want him to guest post, if Mr. Spencer wanted to, on this NASA press release.
This is a huge deal if confirmed. Seriously. I want to see what Roy Spencer has to say about it.
Can anyone say why an increase in water vapor will not also cause an increase in water vapor? As strange as that reads, if GHGs cause more evaporation, then wouldn’t water vapor cause more evaporation and hence more water vapor? What would make CO2 special in this regard?
People discussing the AIRS results here should realized how these sorts of instruments measure temperature, H2O concentration, etc. In general what these satellites measure directly are the infrared and microwave spectral intensities of the electomagnetic radiation leaving the earth’s atmosphere and reaching the orbiting satellite. For any given column of air with known concentrations of gases at known temperatures (from ground to top of atmosphere), you can predict exactly what these spectral intensities ought to be (in the absence of clouds and aerosols). Going the other direction, however, is a very different kettle of fish — you have to start with a reasonably good guess as to the gas concentrations and temperatures from the ground up, and then adjust within constraints until you match the observed spectral intensities. Change the initial guesses and overall constraints, and you change the final estimate or “measurement” of the gas concentrations and temperatures. These programs involve lots of high-powered statistics, lots of calculations, lots of dependence on what we think the atmosphere is like, and are thoroughly understood by only a very small and relatively inbred community of scientists. Other scientists and engineers working on the project are never really in a good position to debate the validity or performance of this community’s science products and computer programs — they tend to be a “black box” to everybody else on the team. By the way, the big uncertainty when I was working in this area was clouds — ideally you want a clear view down to the ground from the satellite or, second best, a single opaque layer of clouds at a known altitude. The game is often to exclude parts of the satellite field of view seriously contaminated by clouds and then calculate gas concentrations and temperature values “in between” the multiply cloudy parts of the scene.
Dave F (22:55:59) :
Can anyone say why an increase in water vapor will not also cause an increase in water vapor?
Seems to make as much sense.
Dave F (22:55:59) :
Can anyone say why an increase in water vapor will not also cause an increase in water vapor?
H2O isn’t the bread winner at this point in history. CO2 is. So I wouldn’t wait to see water vapor talked about too much.
I have not read all comments, and apologize if this has already been discussed.
Quote: “The new data, which span the seven-plus years of the AIRS mission, measure the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere–the region of Earth’s atmosphere that is located between 5 to 12 kilometers, or 3 to 7 miles, above Earth’s surface.”
This statement immediately got me thinking that it would be interesting to collect the data and overlay worldwide airline traffic routes over this global mapping of CO2, and look for correlations. After all, CO2 is a constituent in jet contrails (which are mostly water vapor), and 3 to 7 miles elevation is right in their alleys. (Commercial jets can fly as high as 9.3 miles). Launched in May 2002, AIRS was 8 months too late to monitor the skies over the USA during the three day grounding of most all air traffic after 911. Very unfortunate, that would have been a valuable dataset.
Any thoughts on this by anyone?
Her is the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
BUT: Why is this so different from the above animation?????