National Institute for Environmental Studies
These are sample satellite data maps providing a data overview. Credit: NIES
The World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG; a World Data Centre (WDC) of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)) has been operated since 1990 by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). As the only WDC specializing greenhouse gases, it serves to collect, archive and distribute data on such gases (e.g., CO2, CH4, CFCs and N2O) and other related gases (such as CO) in the atmosphere.
On 19 March 2019, WDCGG began online provision of CO2 observation data* from Japan’s Ibuki Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) for the period from April 2009 in addition to existing surface-based data.
Integration of remote sensing satellite data and existing surface-based in situ data is expected to promote the wider use of this information and facilitate long-term monitoring of global distribution and sub-continental CO2 emission/absorption estimates.
WDCGG plans to continue improving its services for the collection, archiving and distribution of satellite data worldwide, including for GOSAT-2 (the successor to GOSAT), to support the monitoring of climate change and assist policy making, thereby helping to reduce environmental risks to society.
*The original GOSAT data products are distributed by the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan (NIES). GOSAT Data Archive Service (GDAS, https://data2.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_en.html)
What about H20 – the most important GHG ?
ggm – +10! Sure, there are weather satellites that show cloud masses, but if you claim to be the worlds’ WDC specializing in greenhouse gases you should include the main gas.
It is missing because it is natural! LOL
7.7 billion hot humans sweat, that sweat evaporates, that’s anthropophobic H2O ‘climate change’ folks! It’s real! We’re going to need more direct satellite observations, of humans observing other humans via satellites, and feed it all into a Willie-Wonka computer model!
Quite right WXcycles.
The Earth sweats to keep cool, just like you and I. All those clouds prove it; but NASA, The IPCC et al don’t want you to know about that, so water doesn’t get a lookin in their calcs. Might be embarrassing.
All of our combustion of fossil fuels produce water. Coal produces the least, so in that sense, it is the most green-house friendly fuel because it produces mostly CO2 and not water. Hydrogen is the worst but it is not a fossil fuel unless you count the millions of tons of hydrogen produced each year using CO from coal or natural gas.
did you check for sattelite data before asking?
Water Vapor, the main culprit! The idiocy continues…
About the map: Why there is no data of the equatorial rainforests (where plants have the fastest growing rates) but there is data of the equatorial part of the pacific ocean?
nicely spotted urederra…
Because of these maps and how NASA’s Sputnik now ‘seems’ unable to resolve the forests.
Firstly, from a long time ago but still up there at NASA JPL:
See all that CO2 hanging over the forests.
Compare to the map above and also NASA’s map for May 2017:
The forests are emitting vast amounts of CO2 and NASA are hiding the fact..
Because such news *utterly* trashes not only cAGW but the GHGE AND NASA’s oft asserted notion that CO2 is “Greening the Planet..
It fits perfectly with my assertion which I see being reinforced daily and have endlessly raved about on here, that CO2 rises and Global Greening are caused by nitrogen and sulphur oxides – coming from road traffic, industry, agriculture and *everywhere* where *anything* is being burned.
Yes California – I’m looking at you. again
Add in dust, containing potash & phosphate coming off intensively managed arable farmland and the only decently fertile soils left on this planet go into overdrive – especially the previously nutrient starved bacteria within those soils.
THAT is what’s happening within the big forests, NASA see it and know it yet what do they do?
Dress up a girl in a spacesuit.
Well I do declare, that is one helluva Never Better Thing.
We all need some of that action to cure diabetes, deficiencies of Vitamins A, B, D & E, iodine, magnesium and iron deficiencies.
This is a video from BBC, hope it works for you.
She has ‘got it’ full on – full blown brainwash, incomprehension and paranoia. Poor cow.
What she is seeing and reporting on is nothing less than flat out complete and utter destruction of the soil. Soil erosion in all its glory – yet she passes to buck to everyone else. The US mostly of course for causing Climate Change
Some peeps do realise:
and what are the rest saying or doing?
Oooh look, there’s a squirrel!
It Is Not Looking Good
Not good at all
If the video worked, doesn’t that fat kid (isn’t that just awful – I thought it was bottle feeding and sugar addiction but that kid has epic Iodine and thyroid problems
Iodine controls who and what you are and not least, your thoughts and behaviour.
Doesn’t the kid look like Kim Jong un – from North Korea?
So, what is the iodine status of N Korea?
If its low it might just explain a whole lot of things….not least how soil erosion and the resulting (human) nutrient deficiencies might pan out…..
Is Kim still tinkering with his A bomb?
Food for thought innit
“It fits perfectly with my assertion which I see being reinforced daily and have endlessly raved about on here, that CO2 rises and Global Greening are caused by nitrogen and sulphur oxides – coming from road traffic, industry, agriculture and *everywhere* where *anything* is being burned.”
It’s an intriguing idea Peta, continue to elaborate it in future, thanx.
Without CO2, everything would be white…and it trails all atmospheric gases. My question is how does this fact escape so-called climate related scientists? I’m not a scientist, but I can read pretty well. I’ve followed one guy since 1998…Dr Don Easterbrook, Geologist Emeritus, WWU (my girls graduated from WWU). He called it right after drilling ice cores in Greenland and finding for 100’s of years, the Earth goes through approx 30 year cool/warm cycles. In 1998, he was the only climate scientist in the world that called the Pacific current (the heartbeat of climate) switching from warm to cold in 1999 and starting our current cool cycle. He states, this cycle may even be longer, due to a Maunder Minimum. With 45 years of experience, he’s one of the best in the business! His UTube videos are great!
Where have gone the tropical rainforests with their high CO2 concentrations ?
But wait … EurekAlert! … D’OH !
If the pictured map in the above article is supposed to be representative of the atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities for the month of May, 2018, ….. then it is as bogus as Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph.
Fer shame, fer shame, …… touting “junk science” to justify expenditure$.
It looks pretty spot on for May. Could it be that it does not fit the image in your head of what you think it should look like.
Fancy saying it is bogus. The original OCO2 images identified the same patterns. These are transport images.
Martin Cropp – March 27, 2019 at 11:10 am
Martin, ….. that was a truly brilliant deduction on your part. Were you expecting me to disagree with the graphic if it did in fact “fit” the image in my head? Such juvenile silliness really irritates me.
But anyway, …… Martin, …… GETTA CLUE, ….. mid-May of each calendar year marks the “high-point” of the quantity of atmospheric CO2 as measured in ppm. See Keeling Curve Graph.
And that includes the atmosphere in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. If the atmospheric CO2 is at 410 ppm in the NH, …… it is also at 410 ppm in the SH.
What the posted graphic is displaying is the Northern Hemisphere as having 410 ppm (yellow) of atmospheric CO2 in mid-May, ….. while at the same time displaying the Southern Hemispheres as having 400 ppm (green) of atmospheric CO2 in mid-May, …… which AIN’T gonna happen in your lifetime.
Look at the graduation of green on the color scale of the image in the main post- green covers a wide range of values.
Look at the values for May in the attached link for mid SH location. Mmmmm
Martin, ….. go ahead, ….. post 25 additional links to different images, it won’t make a dam bit of difference.
If it is May, 2018 in the NH ….. then it is May, 2018 in the SH.
The difference is that it is Spring time in the NH …… and Fall (autumn) in the SH.
The changing of the equinoxes “signal” the bi-yearly cycling (increase/decrease) in/of atmospheric CO2.
The yearly max in CO2 ppm occurs between May 15 and May 25 …… and the yearly min in CO2 ppm occurs between September 23 and October 2.
And the KC Graph has been attesting to that FACT since 1958.
I wish they had used an equal-area map, to give the equatorial latitudes, with their green paint, the full space they deserve. The yellow area get a bit too much weight in this presentation.
go get the data. do a map
I find it odd that some of the areas now known as global warming holes have some of the highest concentrations of CO2 – US Central Plains, US Northeast, and much of Siberia. One of the so-called global warming hot spots, Australia, shows the lowest CO2 concentrations. If it is CO2 that is causing the warming of the atmosphere and land then this makes no sense to me.
Farms and forests soak it up. –AGF
Not according to the graph above.
Sure they do. In the cities CO2 is produced. In the countryside it is absorbed. That’s why the SH lags behind the North by more than 10ppm: fuel is burned in the North, absorbed by the seas worldwide. –AGF
A G Foster – [CO2] is “absorbed by the seas worldwide”
That’s what we’ve been told, that CO2 in the air is absorbed by the seas. I’ve been looking for indications of that process in the satellite map above, but I don’t see it. Air masses tend to move from West to East across the Pacific, so if the CO2 were absorbed by the sea as the air mass travels over the Pacific, should we see that as a color change in the map? I don’t see it.
In fact, if CO2 were not absorbed by the sea as the air mass travels over the Pacific, then we would expect to see CO2 ‘pooling’ up against the Rocky Mountains of the US west coast. Of course that’s exactly where the tallest trees in the world thrive, where the CO2 is pooling up. Since CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t easily flow over the Rocky Mountains and that’s why it’s not as prominent on the eastern side of that mountain range.
We have various processes that occur at various rates. Local measurements show daily variation in CO2 over vegetated land as plants consume CO2 during the day and stop when the sun goes down. Spring leaves use up CO2 which returns to the fall air as they decay. The Inter Tropical Convergence Zone slowly leaks CO2 to the SH (over several years), as do ocean currents as the sea slowly reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere. You sure can’t expect a single breeze across the sea do it. –AGF
A G Foster: ” …the sea slowly reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere. You sure can’t expect a single breeze across the sea do it.” —> ???
In the comment above you stated: [CO2] is “absorbed by the seas worldwide”. This can only occur at the sea surface, where the sea meets the air, correct?
Now you’re saying that I shouldn’t expect the sea to absorb CO2 from the air during the time that the air is in contact with the sea.
Plankton consume CO2, does that occur at the sea surface?
Perhaps what we should be saying is that gravity distributes CO2 throughout the air faster than the sea ‘absorbs’ it, that would explain why we don’t see a variation in the color on the map.
Gravity is the least effective of the processes that disperse gasses; otherwise CO2, one of the heaviest gasses, would sink to ocean surface and suffocate all sea life. The most important process is mixing by vertical drafts; then molecular diffusion. Once gasses are mixed gravity never comes into play. In the upper atmosphere lighter molecules, like H2 and He, can be heated to escape velocity and fly into space.
So the wind has to blow a CO2 molecule to the ocean surface before it can be dissolved, and it can be blown around for half a century before that happens. It seems the graph depicts the average for May, 2018. –AGF
If the data are collected by satellite sensing, why are there so many gaps in the map they show? The OCO2 satellite data from NASA (or was it NOAA?), which we don’t seem to see any more, had global coverage. Also, the map looks as if it’s giving data in 1° × 1° cells. OCO2 had a much finer resolution. And they gave us these two nice videos showing CO2 variation over a year.
Models are NOT data.
Models do NOT produce data.
Real OCO2 data do not match the models. OCO2 was designed to show and quantify antho-CO2 sources.
The satellite functioned as designed.
In fact, the data show that anthro-CO2 sources are so far below natural CO2 as to be invisible to the satellite. If the OCO2 “succeeded” in its mission, the greens would be screaming for attention to the data.
CO2 follows surface biology, which is exactly what the real data show clearly, that is why no attention is given to the findings from this very expensive satellite.
From conclusions, errors are sometimes the same magnitude of the changes in CO2…
“We find that OCO-2 observations, in their current state of development, often provide a reliable constraint on CO2 budgets across continental or hemispheric regions. By contrast, we find that current observations can provide a unique CO2 estimate across smaller regions in only a handful of cases. As a result, inverse modeling studies are unlikely to constrain regional fluxes at fine spatial and temporal scales given the current maturity of the observations. Regional CO2 budgets estimated using these observations would be highly uncertain and prone to biases.”
Bingo. Models generate pseudo-‘data’ for pseudo-climate-‘science’, widely used by people who are fatally allergic to empiricism.
The OCO-2 data are noisy because, if there are clouds, nothing is recorded. Over a 30-day period, clouds move around and impact the orbital traces at different locations. If you go to the JPL website and look at other collections you will see that some months are particularly sparse. Apparently, there is no attempt to infill the raw data with interpolation or extrapolation. What you see is what you get! Your sample animation is highly ‘photo-shopped!’
If they are not releasing any science from OCO2 then why are they getting ready to send up another one?
“In early 2019, JPL’s OCO-3 instrument is scheduled to launch to the space station to complement OCO-2 observations and allow scientists to probe the daily cycle of carbon dioxide exchange processes over much of Earth.”
OCO2 was extremely successful at recording the seasonal / annual atmospheric accumulation and transport of global CO2. The problem was that it didn’t fit what everybody thought was happening so the images were ignored. Too hard for everybody with a five minute attention span.
…if they would put half as much effort into tracking hormones and crap in our drinking water
Gender confusion issues do not permit it.
On April 15th 2016 the first set of 30 extremely revealing images were released by NASA and no one took any notice. Not even this site, or any other. To this day not one report using the images apart from my own.
Why, because the images recorded what was actually occurring, and that did not fit what people thought should be happening.
Is the entire discussion about CO2? I think so. What a joke. No wonder there is no progress in the CO2 discussion.
Anthony showed the very first image released to the public during the 2014 AGU: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/20/agu14-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-surprising-co2-emissions-in-southern-hemisphere/
Also, I showed an image (Fig. 5) in one of my guest articles: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/26/analysis-of-the-relationship-between-land-air-temperatures-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/
Thanks for your reply Clyde and Steve.
Try reading what I actually wrote. “The 30 extremely revealing images”. Each one covered data over a 16 day period and identified directional transport.
Not the nonsense that you both put up as links. Your replies summed up and reinforced exactly what I commenting about.
I do remember reading your interpretation. I commented at the the time that I didn’t agree with your interpretation. I haven’t changed my mind. What is missing is a mechanism for transport. You need a pressure gradient.
I have found it, just haven’t found the time to fully document the full mechanism that controls it. Business takes precident. Thanks for commenting.
A long way from hydrogen to CO2:
“… perhaps even more importantly, stars create many of the essential elements necessary for life. Most of the important molecules in our bodies are made from carbon. We also need oxygen in water, calcium in our bones, iron in our blood and much more. All of these elements are created inside the stars. When stars die these elements are released into space to be reformed as almost everything we know on Earth. We are all literally made of stars!”