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/ .
Hey people up top, water vapor /itself/ is a greenhouse gas. A durr..
Damn you’re really desperate aren’t you? Another of your arguments is “water vapor, not CO2 causes most of the greenhouse effect, so we shouldn’t be concerned.”
Of course, just because this come from a NASA press release timed to coincide with the Copenhagen three ring circus, it doesn’t HAVE to be crap. (But my BS detector is flashing like mad.)
It has to be good from the paper that “The product represents the first-ever release of global carbon dioxide data that are based solely on observations.” But are these real observations, I wonder? Or just observations of what the output of his X-box looks like?
I wonder if he found that pesky missing tropical hot-spot whilst he was poking around? Did he say?
AK,
Why is Tamino credible?
The claim makes no sense, and the observations claimed are under the control of an extreme AGW promoter.
This reminds me of the ‘Antarctic warming’ fraud of last spring.
It was obviously designed to make a claim to support AGW theory, not to actually tell the truth, and the claim of Antarctic warming fell apart under modest scrutiny.
The obvious lack of strong positive feedbacks is stretching the ability of AGW promoters to distract people. Making claims that there is now tropospheric evidence of it -minor, difficult to verify, and likely at the limits of detectability, is like so much of the rest of AGW evidence: bogus.
A cold warmist (11:09:04) : O/T – the Climategate story just got a whole lot bigger – http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/sheeet.html … This is SERIAL!
Nice one, might warrant a thread to itself? FYI, it’s about Russian scientists saying CRU cherrypicked only a small proportion of the available Russian station records, and it appears CRU picked the ones that show warming…
[REPLY – Check it out. ~ Evan]
Lets read between the lines a little and find what they really mean. Atmospheric CO2 is no longer seen to be a primary driver of global warming, the proof can no longer be hidden so they are including a long ignored bit part player long dismissed as inconvenient to the narrative that CO2 is the global warming culprit.
Enter the former bit part player water vapour stage left to prop up the obviously failing CO2 star, a Hollywood trick of old now dusted down and used in climate ‘science’.
Its as obviously weak as it is desperate, the increasing contortions of a dying theory seen just before plate tectonics theory ousted the consensus and very like the age of the earth consensus and so on.
To protect a dying but dominant theory the adherents will attempt ever more complex assertions based on ever more tenuous evidence to prop up their their consensus and ending up so confused and twisted that the theory eventually fails and another takes its place.
A great many reputations are at stake and a great deal of grant/research money is on the line, but mainly it is the age old human weakness, the inability to accept defeat and error. Ego and reputation and the inevitable humiliation that comes from being wrong will drive scientists to the most extreme lengths in order to protect themselves, the single admission of failure will be incredibly difficult for some to come to terms with.
Science has given us wonderful gifts yet the scientific community shows the same human weaknesses perhaps even amplified somewhat by egotism,pride,jealousy and spite, the elevation of science and scientists in the public imagination is not like the reality.
What previously ignored factor will be piled on to mask the failing theory next, perhaps they have a list of extra ingredients to add?
The sun/cosmic rays/nitrogen/oxygen/the kitchen sink?
Aha! as usual Anthony got there first (Russian stations)
So the Clausius-Clapeyeron relationship is correct after all. Who would have thought it?
No seriously, the lumpy CO2 findings were quite interesting and go some way to supporting Beck’s paper on past CO2 measurements. However, the water vapour feedback just confirms what all skeptics have already known – warmer conditions lead to greater absolute humidity. It tells us nothing about clouds, nor the role in cloud feedbacks, so my understanding it, we haven’t moved from where we were previously.
Hmm; a few initial speculations:
Strange that there seems to be low CO2 in the tropics, and at the poles, and also over the himalayas.
I’d be interested to find out if there are any interference effects with this instrument. For example: if there is a high measured level of atmospheric H20, will that mask the measurement of CO2?
And what about albedo? For example, could the reflectance from Cumulus, and from Icecaps, somehow reduce the instrumental sensitivity to CO2?
Could it be, that a major sink of CO2 is actually clouds? And can the instrument measure CO2 that is absorbed within water-vapour? All those microscopic droplets with a combined huge surface area, and enormous changes of partial pressure as they go up and down in their great convective loops, would seem to be the ideal CO2 ‘scrubber’
Then there is the question of icing; if CO2 comes out of solution when water droplets turn to ice-crystals, could this account for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the just those zones we see, where the highest combination of water-vapour and atmospheric freezing occur ?
The data in the pr seem cherry picked, few months. One has to see the publication to make a judgement.
Steve (11:27:33)
“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.”
Good point. It’s almost as if the increasing water vapor was cancelling out the possible CO2 warming effect during that time.
Another problem – this is only 7 years of data. It’s all great information, but such a short time frame isn’t enough to draw firm conclusions one way or the other, though initial indications are that the water vapor could be a negative feedback rather than a positive one. The AGW’ers have been hanging their hat on satellite data that started in 1979. But since we’ve only been using Mauna Loa for credible mean CO2 measurements from 1979 to, the theory that water vapor feedback mechanism was positive was that – just a theory.
As for Dressler’s comments, as Chris R. said earlier, this guy is all over the lot. First his feedback multiplier was lower than the IPCC’s in 2004, then far higher in 2008, and now lower assuming I’m right that the IPCC projected a feedback of 3-5 times CO2’s influence, he’s lower.
One thing I look forward to is for scientists to take a look at and analyze localized conditions for the correlation of CO2 concentration, water vapor density and temperature changes on a regional level (i.e., Arctic, Antarctic, continental, etc.) to see if the AGW theory holds water.
Not really astonerii (11:45:48),
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).
This doesn’t lead to the “ad infinitum” notion that you suggest obviously. It’s perhaps easier to think of the water vapour feedback as an “amplification” of the primary forcing.
That’s all pretty well established science…
If CO2 does not mix evenly, then what are spatial error components of the CO2 measurements? It is a duplication of the surface station sampling problem. I would love to see those pretty pictures of CO2 dispersion with a indicator of the CO2 sampling locations used to support AGW.
@Jason:
“Hey people up top, water vapor /itself/ is a greenhouse gas”
It sure is Jason. And do you know what a greenhouse gas is? A greenhouse gas is just a gas that is good at absorbing radiant heat. Basically greenhouses gases are good for planet earth, because they provide protection from the extremes of temperature that would otherwise occur if their insulating cover was not present.
The theory was that CO2 was “different” as a greenhouse because it was good at letting heat in from the sun but bad at letting heat out from a warmed planet earth – a kind of “one-way” heat effect. That theory seems to have somehow gotten forgotten – perhaps because it never made much sense in the first place?
Steve Sadlov (11:41:45)
I don’t think there’s any compelling evidence for a cosmic ray atmosphere interaction effect that is significant for climate. Since the secular trend in the cosmic ray flux has been pretty flat (drifting slightly in a cooling direction since the cosmic ray has been measured in detail from the late 1950’s), we know any putative CRF effect can’t have contributed to the marked late 20th century and contemporary warming.
What did you have in mind?
AK says (in part): “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.”
True, but with the Russians now saying their data was fudged, along with New Zealand and Australia, it appears this is becoming a global conspiracy to arrive at anything but the truth.
That, apparently, is more obvious and despicable to a bunch of us “laypersons” than a bunch of “climate scientists” that have been on the gravy train for decades.
By the way… will “climate scientist” now become equivalent to car salesman and insurance agent?
I hope not, because as a geologist I want at least some advanced warning of the next glacial epoch, but AGWers will never see it coming.
need to first prove it’s warming (and please show your work), then we’ll look for causes.
“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,”
OK! Back of an envelope Math coming up:
CO2 has already increased from 284 ppm (pre-industrial level) to 384 ppm (2007). Using the formula for radiative forcing for Carbon Dioxide I make that an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere of half a degree.
If we only consider the most important positive feedback mechanism (water vapor) and completely ignore the possibility that clouds could be an equally important negative feedback mechanism, then we are looking at 1 degree C so far.
If we go the whole way and double CO2 in the atmosphere to 568 ppm, and allow ONLY for the negative feedback effects of water vapor, then we can expect a further increase in temperature of 1.4 degrees centigrade.
Is that it? Is that the worst?
We’re all doomed! (Sarcasm intended)
“tunka (11:26:13) :
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”?”
That was exactly the first thought that came to me, but as Syphax pointed out above, the color scale ranges from about 381 – 389 ppmv, so the CO2 is indeed well mixed. However, I don’t understand why the science team leader would say this:
“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.”
A variation of one part out of 38 does not seem “lumpy” to me – indeed I would call it pretty well mixed.
Anyway, it’s good to have a new comprehensive data-set that might be able to answer some questions.
hunter –
Tamino didn’t produce that data, so whether or not he’s credible doesn’t matter. If Tamino or Al Gore or Michael Mann say the sky is blue, it doesn’t make it green.
The fact is, temperatures confirm the model predictions, water vapor data confirm the model predictions, sea level rise confirms the model predictions, etc.
Time to concede the “observations don’t back the models” meme.
Here’s my take on the following comment:
“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.”
So if humidty is DECREASING; http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg
and co2 does not cause most of the warming, as stated above,when it is actually cooling, and becoming less humid. Then what is actually going on here floks?
Is the entire study based on tainted temperatures, false feedbacks and lacking logic oh my? tainted temperatures, false feedbacks and lacking logic oh my?
” rbateman (11:06:18) :
Jim (10:17:31) :
Hmm … it looks like most of the water vapor is where the highest concentrations of CO2 aren’t.
There’s no scale to this, either.
There is also no C02 over the Himalayas, so there goes the excuse for global warming melting the glaciers.
Based upon the animation, who knew that Mongolia, and the Sino-Siberian border were carbon dioxide traps. That explains all those big red heat spots in Siberia! [/sarcasm]
The perspective on this animation is extremely skewed. We can see the edges of Antarctica, but not the Northern areas of Russia and Canada. It looks like its midline is not the Equator, but several degrees south of it. And if the difference between a pristine blue and an angry red is only 7 particles per million, they are really treading a thin line here for saying carbon dioxide is aggressively causing global warming. Several of the “high” carbon dioxide regions are not noticeably warming.
“supercritical (12:04:02) :
Could it be, that a major sink of CO2 is actually clouds? And can the instrument measure CO2 that is absorbed within water-vapour? All those microscopic droplets with a combined huge surface area, and enormous changes of partial pressure as they go up and down in their great convective loops, would seem to be the ideal CO2 ’scrubber’”
I recently had much the same idea. The water-droplets in clouds provide a lot of surface area for the uptake of CO2. If the clouds then rain out over the ocean, that might be a more efficient mechanism for the exchange of CO2 between air and sea than the direct adsorption at the air-sea interface. Or alternatively, if they don’t rain out, it might be a mechanism for the transport of CO2 across the earth’s surface (as the clouds drift with the wind). I suppose that some of the CO2 could become sequested in the land too (in ground-water that is) as the clouds rain out over land.
These are all interesting questions, which I would hope some enterprising atmospheric scientist or oceanographer would also be asking, and attempting to answer. Do climate scientists ask interesting questions anymore? Are they even curious anymore? Or do they simply assume that they already completely understand how the Earth works?
Excuse the mistake in the last post:
…and allow ONLY for the negative feedback effects of water vapor, then…
should read
…and allow ONLY for the positive feedback effects of water vapor, then…
Martin B (12:22:03)
Yes, you’re right. It’s really a question of timescales. CO2 is pretty well mixed on the annual timescale and rather less well mixed on the monthy timescale. But overall the spatial difference in CO2 levels is small (since CO2 levels mix rather well on the annual timescale!).
One can get a better picture of the spatial variation in CO2 levels from the AIRS data; e.g.:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA11194_modest.jpg
“AK (12:27:02) :
hunter –
Tamino didn’t produce that data, so whether or not he’s credible doesn’t matter. If Tamino or Al Gore or Michael Mann say the sky is blue, it doesn’t make it green.
The fact is, temperatures confirm the model predictions, water vapor data confirm the model predictions, sea level rise confirms the model predictions, etc.
Time to concede the “observations don’t back the models” meme.”
Did the guys who run the climate simulations predict the interruption of the warming trend seen over the last several years? The one of which Kevin Trenberth said that it was a travesty that it could not be explained? Did the authors of the IPCC TAR, back in 2001, warn us that “you may see a slackening in the rate of global warming over the next few years, but do not be deceived – it is still real, and will pick up pace again in about a decade or so”. Or is this another climate trend which can only be predicted in hindsight?