From the University of Exeter, this press release below and not a peep in it about the El Niño earlier this year that would have helped to degassify CO2 from the warmer portions of the Pacific ocean. But hey, its got a connection to UEA, so we know it’s quality work, right?
Global CO2 emissions back on the rise in 2010
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming – show no sign of abating and may reach record levels in 2010, according to a study led by the University of Exeter (UK).
The study, which also involved the University of East Anglia (UK) and other global institutions, is part of the annual carbon budget update by the Global Carbon Project.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, the authors found that despite the major financial crisis that hit the world last year, global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel in 2009 were only 1.3 per cent below the record 2008 figures. This is less than half the drop predicted a year ago.
The global financial crisis severely affected western economies, leading to large reductions in CO2 emissions. For example, UK emissions were 8.6% lower in 2009 than in 2008. Similar figures apply to USA, Japan, France, Germany, and most other industrialised nations.
However, emerging economies had a strong economic performance despite the financial crisis, and recorded substantial increases in CO2 emissions (e.g. China +8 per cent, India +6.2 per cent).
Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, lead author of the research, said: “The 2009 drop in CO2 emissions is less than half that anticipated a year ago. This is because the drop in world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was less than anticipated and the carbon intensity of world GDP, which is the amount of CO2 released per unit of GDP, improved by only 0.7 per cent in 2009 – well below its long-term average of 1.7% per year.”
The poor improvements in carbon intensity were caused by an increased share of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions produced by emerging economies with a relatively high carbon intensity, and an increasing reliance on coal.
The study projects that if economic growth proceeds as expected, global fossil fuel emissions will increase by more than 3% in 2010, approaching the high emissions growth rates observed through 2000 to 2008.
The study also found that global CO2 emissions from deforestation have decreased by over 25% since 2000 compared to the 1990s, mainly because of reduced CO2 emissions from tropical deforestation.
“For the first time, forest expansion in temperate latitudes has overcompensated deforestation emissions and caused a small net sink of CO2 outside the tropics”, says Professor Corinne Le Quéré, from the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, and author of the study. “We could be seeing the first signs of net CO2 sequestration in the forest sector outside the tropics”, she adds.
Editors’ notes
The Global Carbon Project
The Global Carbon Project was formed to assist the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The project is working towards this through a shared partnership between the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and Diversitas. This partnership constitutes the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP).
More information available at: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”””” Joel Shore says:
November 23, 2010 at 5:42 am
Alan the Brit says:
………………………..
Also if this type of thing is going to be quoted, can we please have a definitive figure other than those of 650,000 years, 750,000 years, & 800,000 years, as qioted by many, someone needs to make their mind up which it is, just for the sake consistency, & not for dramatic effect.
………………………….
They have extended back the ice core record over the years. I know it goes back at least 650,000 years…and it may well now go back the 800,000 years. “””””
Joel, I believe your number of 650,000 years relates to the so-called “Dome-C” location; and that is also the time scale plotted in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” (pp16-17), which I assume derives from the Dome-C data.
Vostok as you know is cut off at around 450,000 or 470,000 years, and they can’t really go any deeper without cutting into the liquid Vostok Lake there which they want to avoid at all costs; because that would contaminate the lake. I think they are only a handfull of metres from the lake.
I’m not aware of any numbers going to 800,000 years; but maybe there are such data. But it is kind of irrelevent isn’t it (as regards what has happened since). Yes maybe if they can go back beyond 650,000 years they might obtain “history ” of some previously unknown events. I’m sure that’s of interest to some fields of science; but not to modern climate events.
There is a lot of question as to how the apparent Temperature and CO2 data obtained from the ice samples relate to real global conditions way back then; and also on how that data may “age” over time. I believe that Dr Steven Piper of Scripps Inst of Oceanography (La Jolla CA) has determiend some sort of CO2 diffusion rates in ice; but I haven’t seen that information. He’s a CO2 expert; and not necessarily from climate interests; but he has told me he works with other CO2 folks at Scripps; who are climate people.
So what we have in the ice core data may be debateable; but it’s a whole lot better than having nothing; and I don’t think anybody believes it is just noise. But whether it is the 450,000 yrs From Vostok or 650,000 years from Dome-C it’s of no consequence , since they tend to replicate results for times that overlap (although not all ice cores do over the last few thousand years).
John from CA says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:07 am
The chart clearly shows the hourly and daily spikes one would expect to find in a location like MLO. The comparison to SPO is great, shows a far less chaotic SPO pattern and clearly shows the difference between the 2 locations.
But as I warned, look at the scale! If one plots everything on full scale, that gives quite a difference:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_raw_select_2008_fullscale.jpg
In this case Samoa (south of the equator) quite similar to the South Pole.
IMO, the smoothed station trend charts fail to adequately express deviations one would expect to find and the “Global” chart trends and conclusions are highly suspect because they are to generalized (imply a global state rather then presenting a dynamic reflection of the climate system).
There are two important short term items in the “selected” trends: the seasonal variation (mainly in the NH) and the year by year increase (result of the emissions, but modulated by temperature). In addition, the raw hourly trends show more local variability, which differs from place to place: less at the South Pole (only some mechanical problems due to the harsh conditions) more at Mauna Loa (volcanic vents and depletion by vegetation under upwind conditions). These have no connection at all with anything global and are rightfully discarded for the global trend. But even if you include them, that doesn’t change the average or trend with more than 0.1 ppmv. The variability of local outliers is about +/-4 ppmv, the seasonal variability at MLO is of the same order (+/-1 ppmv in the SH), but the trend over the past 50+ years is about +60 ppmv. Or some 30% more CO2 since the measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa started. As nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2 (45% of the emissions as mass are absorbed in the oceans and vegetation), the increase is fully attributable to the emissions.
Fun thought, it would be interesting to see a comparison of Ground Station readings in the Pacific upwelling regions like the Gulf of Alaska and the Sea of Okhotsk used to help model carbon discharge during seasonal ENSO conditions. If the ocean sequesters CO2 for hundreds of years, what percentage of pre-industrial CO2 vs manmade are we seeing at various locations?
I don’t think that the Gulf of Alaska or the Sea of Okhotsk are such upwelling places, as these are cold and mainly absorb part of the CO2 increase, see the transfer maps, based on the measured (by seaships) pCO2 difference between air and oceans at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/images/fig03.jpg
But in general, while the exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean’s surface layer is relative rapid (1.5 years half life time), the atmospheric mixing is much faster (days to weeks for every latitude band at sealevel). Thus you will not see much difference between Barrow or La Jolla pier or Mauna Loa… Have a look at the time series of Cold Bay, Alaska (at the edge of the Gulf of Alaska), Tae-ahn Peninsula, Republic of Korea or Shemya Island, Alaska as nearest to the Sea of Okhotsk, hardly any diifference with Mauna Loa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
How much original anthro CO2 still resides at different places can be seen in the 13C/12C ratio, as fossil fuel is quite depleted in 13C. There is more lag for the 13C decline than for total CO2 between the hemispheres, which points -again- to the main source of extra CO2 in the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
George E. Smith says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:02 am
Here are the Dome C CO2 data, back to 800,000 years, compared with the Vostok data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
The investigation of CO2 diffusion was based on remelt layers of the Siple Dome. These show a broadening of the smoothing of the CO2 data from about 60 years to 120 years in the deeper layers (if the assumptions are right). That may be true for the Siple Dome (which is relative warmer at average -16°C), but is less relevant for the Vostok and Dome C ice cores which are much colder (at -40°C). Around -32°C there is no liquid water present anymore at the ice-air interface, even less between the ice crystals. Except for salt inclusions.
For Vostok (and as it seems for Dome C too), if there was much migration, the ratio between temperature changes and CO2 changes should be reduced for every period of 100,000 years back in time. That is not the case.
Sorry, forgot to include the link for the migration:
http://www.igsoc.org/journal/54/187/j07j102.pdf
Again sorry, made a mistake: the (current) average temperature at Siple Dome is -25.4°C, not -16°C as I said from memory (which isn’t anymore that good as 20 years ago…).
Steve E
I know your a pillock but try this. Go to a desert somewhere on earth, there are a few to chose from. Leave your pullovers and overcoats behind. Sit on the ground at midday and stay there ’til midnight. Now, the temp at midday will be <30°C and at midnight -20°C that's the Gobi. The CO² has not kept you warm. Now go to england in mid summer and feel 30°C and wait to midnight and you will feel 20°C. England is covered by wet air. You see, CO² warms nothing, water warms everything.
I know this is simplistic but I felt it needed to be. 🙂
Steve E, loved, loved, loved the article on the measurement of CO2 ratios. Thanks so much. We should have been measuring this ratio from the 50’s on and at several sites. Why? CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. I highly doubt that the ratio is. I still have to go with the null hypothesis, that CO2 increase has to do with the human population explosion. However, I would also admit that combustion muddies the water.
Just to remind you where my beliefs lay about greenhouse gasses, I am typing this while layered up in long johns, pj’s and a wool bathrobe. Yes, this cold is weather related (negative AO sending cold air South), but weather pattern variations can last longer than a few days and cares not one wit about CO2 warming, swatting it away like some tiny insect.
stephen richards says:
November 23, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Steve E
I know your a pillock but try this. Go to a desert somewhere on earth, there are a few to chose from. Leave your pullovers and overcoats behind. Sit on the ground at midday and stay there ’til midnight. Now, the temp at midday will be <30°C and at midnight -20°C that's the Gobi. The CO² has not kept you warm. Now go to england in mid summer and feel 30°C and wait to midnight and you will feel 20°C. England is covered by wet air. You see, CO² warms nothing, water warms everything.
I know this is simplistic but I felt it needed to be. 🙂
—————————-
Well done!
You'll have noticed in my comment that I mentioned it's more complex and involves water so I'm glad you brought it up!
Now what controls the amount of water vapour that's in the atmosphere?
The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation, so if you increase the temperature, even slightly, you increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the temperature further.
Water vapour is the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
Simples!
Pamela Gray says:
November 23, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Steve E, loved, loved, loved the article on the measurement of CO2 ratios. Thanks so much. We should have been measuring this ratio from the 50′s on and at several sites. Why? CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. I highly doubt that the ratio is. I still have to go with the null hypothesis, that CO2 increase has to do with the human population explosion. However, I would also admit that combustion muddies the water.
Just to remind you where my beliefs lay about greenhouse gasses, I am typing this while layered up in long johns, pj’s and a wool bathrobe. Yes, this cold is weather related (negative AO sending cold air South), but weather pattern variations can last longer than a few days and cares not one wit about CO2 warming, swatting it away like some tiny insect.
———————-
No problem about the article, I’m glad you enjoyed it! 😀
You seemed have missed part of it though as the samples taken in figure 9 date back to the 1700’s and are taken from ice cores in Antartica and also modern samples from Mauna Loa. All show a downward trend in carbon isotope ratio which is pretty conclusive that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels, although the amount that’s used is related to population growth as you rightly state.
Two measuring sites, no matter how often sampled, would be laughed out of Science 101. Hell, I had 6 subjects in my study, sampled 1000’s of times, and still got questioned about such a small subject number. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere, and can lead to spurious conclusions about CO2 in the rest of the world. For example, both sites you mention have two things in common, encroaching human population. More CO2 from humans and more CO2 from their use of combustion. The two go hand in hand. That we have made our lives more comfortable and are living longer because of it, shows up in the ratio. But nonetheless, without population decrease, we will not see a decrease in CO2.
Yes, greenhouse gasses warm the atmosphere, but clearly this warmth is within the standard deviation of weather pattern variations caused by natural ongoing oceanic and atmospheric events. So I’m not worried. The population explosion will continue and we will still be shivering in Wallowa County.
Pamela Gray says:
November 24, 2010 at 6:30 am
Two measuring sites, no matter how often sampled, would be laughed out of Science 101. Hell, I had 6 subjects in my study, sampled 1000′s of times, and still got questioned about such a small subject number. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere, and can lead to spurious conclusions about CO2 in the rest of the world.
Pamela, there are currently 10 “baseline” stations which monitor CO2 on places which are deemed “background” with little disturbance of local/regional sources and sinks monitored by NOAA and some 70 others from different organisations in different countries. All measuring CO2 with minimum disturbance. Mauna Loa (and other stations) measures samples every 10 seconds, some 8 million per year. That, together with ships surveys, buoys and in-flight measurements show that the levels of CO2 only differ with less than 5 ppmv (1.2% of the full scale) in 95% of the atmosphere for yearly averages. During a year, one sees a variability of average +/- 5 ppmv over the seasons, more in the NH, less in the SH (less vegetation). And there is a NH-SH lag of over a year. I (and many with me) call that “well mixed”. Well mixed doesn’t mean that at every point on earth at every moment one would measure exactly the same CO2 levels: that can only be true if there were no sources and sinks at work, but as there are huge sources and sinks at work over the seasons, the changes needs some time to reach all parts of the globe.
Where CO2 is not well mixed is near ground (less than a few hundred meters) over land (less than 5% of the total atmosphere), because soil bacteria (and plants at night) produce CO2 and near all human emissions are over land, while plants in daylight absorb CO2. That means that CO2 sources and sinks are mostly at small distance of each other and have a huge influence on measurements, depending on light, wind speed, inversion,… Even there, some 400 stations measure CO2 levels and fluxes at different heights over land to have a better idea of details in the carbon cycle.
“”””” Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:06 pm
George E. Smith says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:02 am
Here are the Dome C CO2 data, back to 800,000 years, compared with the Vostok data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
The investigation of CO2 diffusion was based on remelt layers of the Siple Dome. “””””
Thanks for that link Ferdinand. So it appears that we do have core data going back 800 kyrs now. But as I queried, it seems like nothing important or untoward happened between 800 k and 650 k yrs ago.
It is interesting that the ice cores show only 280 ppm max for today’s CO2 ; well below the Mauna Loa 390.
George E. Smith says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm
It is interesting that the ice cores show only 280 ppm max for today’s CO2 ; well below the Mauna Loa 390.
That is because Vostok and Dome C have very little precipitation (a few mm ice equivalent per year). The result is that a lot of layers (thus years) are needed to compress the snow into ice, that makes that the youngest closed ice is already several hundreds of years old with a resolution of about 560 years. Thus largely missing the increase over the last 150 years. The advantage is that one has layers of ice with enclosed air back to some 800,000 years at a similar depth where other cores with higher accumulation (Law Dome 1.5 meter ice equivalent) only go back 150 years, but with a much better resolution (8 years).
But that doesn’t matter much, as several ice cores with different accumulation rates overlap each other for several periods in time, be it many more for recent times than back in history. See the plot of several ice cores for the past 1,000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
The Law Dome ice cores even have an overlap of some 20 years with the direct measurements at the South Pole.
For Ferdinand Engelbeen.
Ferdinand;, I haven’t paid a whole lot of attention to any of these ice core graphs, because I’ve long been convinced that CO2 levels in the atmosphere really don’t matter a whole lot in the scheme of things.
Oh I accept that CO2 is a GHG and can absorb some parts of the roughly 288 K thermal radiation spectrum emitted from the earth surface or even other atmosphere layers. I also accept that CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising at least sicne 1957/8. I also accept that some of this CO2 rise is from human activities; which I assume are a combination of fossil fuels burning,and also global deforestation which would reduce plant uptake of CO2 (although old growth forests ought to be carbon neutral).
I even accept that such GHG absorptions of LWIR radiation from the surface will warm the atmosphere; but in no way distinguishable from atmospheric heating due to H2O absorption of near IR solar spectrum radiation.
So I’m not going to die on any undefensable hills of little importance.
But looking at these various ice core graphs; and trying to learn how thes ice layers are laid down; and where the water comes from and where the atmosphere comes from and where the CO2 comes from; I am quite skeptical that we have any basis for believing that the composition of the entrapped air and CO2 in ice core layers, is an accurate rendition of the actual atmospheric composition at ANY point in time; either forward or aft of the snow deposition.
I can’t say that I have ever seen any good peer reviewed journal papers that justify saying, that what we observe in the ice inclusions is in any way a true representation of what the atmospheric composition was globally at some time epoch that is somehow linked to the time of laydown of the snow.
It is something I would certainly like to learn more about; but in the overall scheme of things; I doubt that it is of much importance (other than idle curiosity) because in the end; I think that water and the clouds, are in total negative feedback control of earth’s Temperature range; and there’s little if anything we could do to change that either up or down; even if we wanted to.
And perish the thought that we could; because we would then have world wars trying to decide who gets to dial in the set point on the thermostat.
I thank you for your wealth of information as to this ice stuff.
“Tim Folkerts says:
Here I agree! The clouds are a big factor and one that cannot be settled with simple thermodynamics. They completely change the equations and would have a cooling affect. I will leave the details of clouds and all the associated feedback for someone else to worry about.”
and that Tim says it all. The big factors in actual climate change, as opposed to measurements/predictions of small fractions of a degree of temperature change in the atmosphere, depend primarily on water vapor and the formation/dissipation of clouds, plus such things as ocean circulation and a number of other factors that aren’t even identified yet. All the climate models and all the disaster scenarios are based on the ‘supposition’ that a small increase in lower level air/surface temperatures will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere greatly magnifying the total temperature increase. Due to the complexity of water vapor/cloud interactions in the atmosphere and the supposed connection between CO2 and water vapor no one really knows what is going on there. And more importantly, the major players working off our tax money don’t seem to be interested in doing the field work necessary to work out the actual mechanisms in play.
Somewhere around here Willis Eschenbach has an excellent article on what can be observed from current satellite data about how the daily development of clouds over the tropics seems to work. At least someone is asking some questions.
George E. Smith says:
November 24, 2010 at 4:14 pm
But looking at these various ice core graphs; and trying to learn how thes ice layers are laid down; and where the water comes from and where the atmosphere comes from and where the CO2 comes from; I am quite skeptical that we have any basis for believing that the composition of the entrapped air and CO2 in ice core layers, is an accurate rendition of the actual atmospheric composition at ANY point in time; either forward or aft of the snow deposition.
I don’t think that we differ in opinion about the real impact of increasing levels of CO2: In my opinion even a doubling would have little impact, as clouds are a negative feedback (while all current GCM’s include clouds as a positive feedback!), thus a doubling of CO2 would have only moderate (and thus globally positive) effects.
My interest in CO2 levels and ice cores is more like that while skeptic about the effects, defending the undefendable is weakening one’s strong position on points where the “consensus” is very weak.
The ice cores were studied by many, but especially Etheridge e.a. in 1996: he drilled three ice cores at Law Dome with different drilling techniques (wet and dry), measured the firn composition top down until where there was a mix of still open and already closed air bubbles: both had the same CO2 level, although completely different ways of sampling were used. Here some overview of the results by Etheridge:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
Later work with finer measurements show a slight depletion of the smallest molecules (not CO2) at closing time, but that is not relevant for ancient CO2 levels.
The same for the origin of the increase of CO2:
As humans have emitted about twice the amount of CO2 as is measured as increase, there is little doubt that humans are the cause of the increase: nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2. That is confirmed by every observation: d13C (atmosphere + oceans) and d14C changes, DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon in the oceans surface) and oxygen use (which shows that the biosphere is a net CO2 sink). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Any alternative explanation (like ocean degassing) is contradicted by one or more observations (the d13C level of CO2 released from ocean waters is higher than of the atmosphere, but we observe a decrease).
Further, water isotopic composition of the ice layers depends of the seawater temperature at the source and where (icy) clouds are formed. There is a quite good insight of todays isotopic changes, but still discussion on how that changed during colder periods. But in general, coastal ice cores (Siple, Law Dome) reflect near coast seawater temperatures, while inland high-altitude ice (Vostok, Dome C) reflects long range SH ocean temperatures. But still a proxy, thus less reliable than direct measurements.
The origin of CO2 levels measured in ice cores is no problem at all, even not in current times, as the yearly average from near the North Pole (Barrow, Alert) to the South Pole doesn’t differ with more than 5 ppmv, while the increase is about 2 ppmv/year. The high accumulation ice cores (Law Dome) have a resolution of about 8 years. Back in time, the resolution is about 600 years (Vostok, Dome C), but a 100 ppmv transition between an ice age and an intergracial needs some 5,000 years…
Ferdinand, you are wrong about CO2 mixing. It is not well mixed in the atmosphere no matter the height above the ground. CO2 is heavy and is easily precipitated out of rainy areas (could be why the tropics are not inundated with the stuff). You can clearly see CO2 accumulating in the jet stream paths as these are areas with strong enough up-lift and tracking within an airflow to keep CO2 circulating.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/image_gallery/gases/
Pamela Gray says:
November 26, 2010 at 8:59 am
Ferdinand, you are wrong about CO2 mixing. It is not well mixed in the atmosphere no matter the height above the ground. CO2 is heavy and is easily precipitated out of rainy areas (could be why the tropics are not inundated with the stuff). You can clearly see CO2 accumulating in the jet stream paths as these are areas with strong enough up-lift and tracking within an airflow to keep CO2 circulating.
There is very little difference between the air layers from near sea level over the oceans to the upper troposphere and even in the lower stratosphere. The differences are in the order of +/-4 ppmv, just look at the scale of the different pictures, here for July 2009: 382-389 ppmv to show the full range of colors:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA12339_modest.jpg
Some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from the oceans and biosphere over the seasons. Despite such huge exchanges, the variability in CO2 levels is only 2% over the full range. I call that well mixed…
Further, only when huge amounts of CO2 are released or taken away (exhausts, fires, photosynthesis), that can be measured near the sources. At some distance and with sufficient wind, CO2 is readily mixed and stays mixed, as long as there are no sinks which capture CO2. Even very heavy molecules like chlorine, CFC’s etc. mix with the rest of the atmosphere and some can reach the stratosphere before being destroyed (for CFC’s even at the wrong place…). That is because all molecules in a gas are moving around randomly, colliding with each other and even quite heavier particles (than relative light CO2) are moved around without reaching the ground. See:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/brownian.htm
Further, I don’t know of any measurements which show that rain removes huge quantities of CO2 from the higher atmosphere. Measurements at Mauna Loa (3,400 m) and at sealevel (Cape Kumakahi) in Hawaii shows similar CO2 levels, while Mauna Loa in general is above the clouds/rain and Kumakahi at sealevel has its frequent tropical showers in the wet season…
You can plot the data yourself:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/index.php
See also the nice movie where satellite measurements are compared to the Mauna Loa data:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/