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)
For 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.
oops, to be a Complete….
Anthony did you put this article up to exercise the reflexes of WUWT readers and check they were transparently healthy?
This IS interesting. Before we have dismissed the models because the warming of the 6000 – 12000 m in the tropics just weren’t there, therefore the models looked suspect, while the explanations of Lindzen were more according to the observations.
Now, the assumptions behind the models seem to be confirmed by observations. If so, the hypotesis of global warming is certainly more likely than before.
One thing that strikes me: CO2 is supposed to be a long lived gas in the atmosphere, why is it not then well mixed in the air? Why is it “lumped together”?
I will wait until further information to draw any conclusions; this science is so politicized that anything is possible.
I loved this part:
It is designed to suggest some important, heretofore-unknown relationship between H2O and CO2, vindicating the “feedback” speculation of the AGWers that forms a central feature of GCM’s. It is verbal sleight-of-hand. Dessler essentially admits that CO2, nor any GHG, plays any special role in spawning H20 vapor in the atmosphere — it is a purely temperature-driven phenomenon. DUH!
The two animations say it all. In between the Northern and Southern “bands” of increased CO2 activity shown in the first animation is an empty band of lower activity. But in the second animation, it is along this EMPTY CO2 activity band that the most intense level of atmospheric H2O is generated. Well…OBVIOUSLY! That is the equator! It’s hottest there!
It looks possible that statistical analysis of the underlying data would reveal a NEGATIVE correlation between regions of high CO2 activity and regions of high H2O activity in the atmosphere.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/14/another-defection-from-warmism-un-ipcc-coordinating-author-dr-philip-lloyd-calls-out-ipcc-fraud/hello!!!!
You have to read this!!!
Is it saying what its really saying???? And this is written BEFORE “climategate”!
So the AIRs data for five years, 2003-2008, a period of FALLING global temperatures, and increasing humidity is taken as positive feedback?
Uhmmmm isn’t that really proof of NEGATIVE feedback?
And the entire raob record, marked by RISING global temperatures and decreasing humidity is ignored as NEGATIVE feedback?
Hooo boy.
This doesn’t make sense to me. If water vapor feedback is positive, I expect to see more warming over the oceans where there is obviously more water available for a positive feedback loop to operate.
But isn’t most of the warming supposed to be over land? From this is I conclude this must be due to one of these:
A) Water vapor feedback is negative
B) The observed warming over land is polluted by other effects
C) It’s more complex than I am making it
D) All of the above
I just read Dressler’s paper and he matched the HadCRUT3 data set. Isn’t this the one that was tricked? If so then he matched something that was falsified thus leading to false conclusions.
This work was supported by NASA grants NNG04GL64G, NNG04GH67G, and NNX08AF68G, all to Texas A&M.
November temperature data is up. 4th warmest November on record:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 12/ global-cooling-at-sarah-palins-house.html
But there’s global cooling both at Sarah Palin’s house AND the country she can see from her house.
Anything Dessler says or claims should be viewed very critically. He is more of a politician than a scientist. He worked for Gore in the Clinton WH, and is a strong AGW promoter.
He has been trying to find ‘fingerprints’ in the troposphere for a long while, and if I recall correctly, has been shown to be misleading people.
Sort of Mann-eque, as it were.
Russia says the CRU appears to have cherry picked which Russian weather stations to use:
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
Source: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html
(May have to page down to see this item – the above is worthy of a front page item at WWUT)
syphax (11:09:09) :
7 ppm difference? That’s many times weaker than the TSI range.
As pointed out by others:
It all depends on what happens to the water vapor. If it remains ambient, it contributes to warming. If cloud cover increases, however, the feedback will be negative.
Also, if CO2 accumulates in the mid-troposphere (the upper and lower going around like a conveyor belt), why is there no hot spot?
A factor of only two as the upper limit for any possible positive feedback? I thought models predict much more than that…
the reason this cannot be correct is that pesky historical record that shows CO2 going up after warming, and ahead of cooling.
If what Dessler is promoting were accurate, we would see it in the historical record.
It is not in the historical record, so it is yet more AGW hype and fear mongering.
How much data do these AGW promoters get to torture before the human rights people movee in on these cruel torturers?
Jim (10:17:31): Hmm … it looks like most of the water vapor is where the highest concentrations of CO2 aren’t.
That’s what my eyes see too — no only in the latitudinal banding but also for the big wet spot in the southern Himalayas.
Ah! So it IS the humidity. /sarc
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1
Wondering Aloud says: “Supporting models that are already disproven by the actual temperature data doesn’t suggest they are right. It suggests your method is crap.”
Actually, the fact that Dessler’s OBSERVATIONS corroborate what models predicted shows that the models are correct. Also, temperature data confirms the models are correct – the meme that “temperature doesn’t match the model” has no basis in the evidence. See here (solid lines are actual temps, and they fall toward the upper end of model predictions):
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rahmstorf2.jpg
And if you think the temperature data is all faked anyway, how are you going to now say that this flawed temperature data proves the models incorrect?
What your statement shows is that you should not be drawing your own conclusions on climate science based on your layperson’s understanding the issue.
Next story. This one is full of holes already. We need to stop giving these people money to study air. We could feed a lot of hungry people and buy some nice bikes for the poor children with this grant money.
Brilliant headline on the BBC website today:
“Met was dysfunctional”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8415000/8415634.stm
Unfortunately the Met in question is not the one which issues scarey forecasts about 2080 but the one which is responsible for policing in London.
Once again, they fail to deal with the interaction between cosmic rays and the atmosphere.
“The timing of this release is interesting.”
Not according to email number 1257881012.txt
“As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the American public’s “belief” in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the earth according to the Pew Center’s October poll), and December’s media blitz provides an opportunity to reverse the trend.”
If warmer temperatures have a feedback of more water in the air, which warms the temperatures which then adds more water to the air that then warms the temperatures ad infinitum, why do we even need CO2 to get this to happen? There can be no net positive feedback mechanism on Earth, as it is impossible to have the climate we have today with it.
If CO2 warming leading to temperature amplification via water vapor were that straightforward, the IPCC models wouldn’t be failing.
It also contradicts Lindzen’s recent ERBE results.