Jun 7, 2021
This animation shows the accumulation of data from NASA’s OCO-3 instrument used to create a map of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations that covers about 50 square miles (80 square kilometers) of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The highest concentrations are in yellow.Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Such detailed maps could help policymakers choose the most effective ways of cutting carbon emissions.
Using data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3) instrument on the International Space Station, researchers have released one of the most accurate maps ever made from space of the human influence on carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The map shows tiny variations in airborne CO2 from one mile of the giant L.A. Basin to the next.
The highest CO2 readings, in yellow on the map, are on the west side of downtown L.A. – a densely populated area with congested freeways and CO2-emitting industries. Yellow indicates atmospheric CO2 elevated by five or more molecules out of every million molecules of air, or five parts per million. That’s equivalent to the amount that global atmospheric CO2 is rising globally on average every two years
The animation shows five adjoining swaths of data the OCO-3 instrument collected over the metropolitan area to create a map of CO2 concentrations that covers about 50 square miles (80 square kilometers). Each pixel is about 1.3 miles (2.2 kilometers); the color indicates how much higher the concentration of CO2 is in that spot than in clean desert air north of the city (measured at NASA’s Armstrong Research Center, upper right).
Most of the increasing CO2 in the global atmosphere comes from humans burning fossil fuels for energy, and 70% of that comes from cities. Los Angeles has set goals for cutting its carbon emissions. This type of data can help decision makers choose the most effective policies to reach those goals and to measure the effectiveness of new regulations. Data from ground level provides critical local measurements, but satellite data is equally necessary because it covers a wider area and also measures CO2 throughout the entire depth of the atmosphere.
The International Space Station, which hosts the OCO-3 instrument, circles Earth between 52 degrees north and 52 degrees south latitudes – about the latitudes of London and Patagonia. Almost all cities on Earth come within its view on average once every three days. The OCO-3 team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California schedules measurements at up to 40 locations a day. Most of these targets are high-CO2-emitting cities.
The instrument consists of a telescope and three spectrometers, a kind of instrument that analyzes wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum of sunlight to find the spectral “fingerprint” of carbon dioxide. The telescope swivels rapidly to collect as many adjoining swaths of data as possible over a targeted location within two minutes. OCO-3 usually collects a single swath of data as it orbits, like its predecessor the OCO-2 mission (which is still operating), but it’s designed to create snapshot maps like this one to give researchers a more complete picture of emissions from cities and other areas of interest.
The maps were published this week in a paper in the journal Remote Sensing of Environment.
Jane J. Lee / Ian J. O’Neill
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
It would be interesting to see what NASA shows about the CO2 plumes around Hawaii and their impact on the measurement of global ‘well mixed’ CO2
Steps are taken at Mauna Loa to only use measurements acquired when interference is not significant.The satellite instruments do not have the vertical resolution needed to show this, however, they could show the plumes around Hawaii that you are concerned about.
The following details how measurements are made at Mauna Loa and how background CO2 is treated.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
its not a well mixed gas … therefore there is no “background” level …
They are talking about prevailing conditions as the “background” with air movement being probably the most important. If wind is moving air from a volcano directly to the analyzer shed, then obviously those measurement results would be thrown out.
I looked into this several years ago. They’re very careful not to take readings when the wind is carrying CO2 from known sources. Their figures can be trusted if there are any that can.
The largest source of natural CO2 is the oceans, with volcanos at #2. Where, on an active volcano in the centre of the largest ocean on Earth, which is itself surrounded by volcanos, is upwind of a source of CO2?
Take these measurements in the forests of the Appalachian Mountains and they will show significantly higher levels of CO2. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to increased vegetation not humans. Humans are only responsible for about five percent of atmospheric CO2.
Never more appropriate..
From utube comments:
completely timeless, the u.k had so much in the 90’s now we have f**k all is what this reminds me off
Now. Lets find out what NASA are NOT telling us
Apparently, YouTube finds this video inappropriate for viewing here.
50 square miles is more like 130 square kilometers, not 80!
This metric system is really a bear to figure out and C to F is even worse. Double the temperature in C, subtract 10% and add 32. Really. When is the rest of the world going back to measurements that were intended for man (and woman)? Whoever this Metric person was that invented all this needs to be wiped from history.
IMHO, the metric (Centigrade) system is much more rational than the Imperial/English (Fahrenheit) system when it comes to defining temperature.
Let’s compare:
1) The metric system uses the ice-point of water to establish 0 °C, whereas the Imperial system uses 32 °F (where in the heck did that come from?). It is very easy for anyone with ice to actually produce an accurate 0 °C reference in their home.
2) Similarly, the metric system uses the boiling-point of water at sea-level to establish 100 °C, whereas the Imperial system uses 212 °F (where in the heck did that come from?). It is very easy for anyone living at sea-level and having water and a fire to actually produce an accurate 100 °C reference in their home.
3) Do you know how to easily produce accurate 0 °F and 100 °F reference temperatures at home?
4) The spread between the ice point and the boiling point of water in the metric system is a nice, round 100 °C; in comparison, the Imperial system has these two key reference points separated by a rather strange 180 °F. What the heck?
“The U.S. is one of the few countries globally which still uses the Imperial system of measurement” — https://www.interexchange.org/articles/career-training-usa/2012/05/24/imperial-vs-metric-system/
It was a joke
And in Canada, a metric nation, the doors on a convenience store have a foot inch label to measure the thief when he leaves. Why?
G’day Gordon,
Zero degrees Fahrenheit was established as the coldest possible combination of water, ice and salt. Think in terms of home made ice cream, with a hand cranked churn.
The intent was for the human body to provide the 100°F mark, and let boiling water fall wherever it did. The human body was not a good choice as temperatures vary considerably.
Recent experience – with the Covid scare, and a new digital thermometer. My wife came in at 98.6° +/- 0.3° throughout the winter. Me: 96.2° +/- 0.2° over the same period, same thermometer. Not surprising that the original “100°” was off some. (Both born before Pearl Harbor, hence the interest in our personal temperatures.) (As an ‘aside’: married 52 years and counting.)
It was some years ago, a comment in a magazine article relating to temperature measurement: “There are just two major countries still using Imperial units, the United States and Burma.”
TG, thanks for the input! I had not previously heard these factors as being fundamental to development of the Fahrenheit temperature scale.
It is interesting that “scientists” would have ever considered the difference between an actual average human body temperature (98.6 °F) and setting a point 1.4 °F higher, at “100 °F”, as being “scientific” methodology.
And what the heck were those “scientists” thinking by using a physical chemistry process (i.e., minimum water-ice-salt mix temperature) to set the 0 °F reference point and then shifting to a somewhat variable biological process (i.e., the average steady state body temperature of healthy humans) to “set” the 100 °F reference point?
The rational, metric temperature scale was established solely based on the two phase-change points of pure water at sea-level pressure.
Imperial measures were/are a mess. Think: inch, foot, yard, rod, chain, furlong, mile or currency: farthing, half-penny, penny, three-pence, sixpence, shilling, florin, crown, pound, guinea.
In ’95 I was in Australia basically to say “Goodbye” to relatives and friends. I didn’t expect to visit again. I was driving south on the New England tableland just after sunrise. Came to a small town and looked for the Post Office, had some postcards to send. Missed it, made a U turn and stopped at the only place in town that was open – a bakery. The gal was about 17 to 20 years old. “The Post Office?” “About two hundred yards down on the opposite side.”
Australia went fully “metric” in the early 1970’s. She probably wasn’t even born then, but she still used ‘yards’.
Explain the rational behind measurements determined many years ago? Beyond me I’m sure. A yard? The distance from the Kings nose to the tip of his outstretched fingertips.
Asimov did an essay which mentioned “Pike’s Arithmetic”, over 500 pages. A search turns up several sites possibly worth a look at. A quick four page discussion is at:
https://davidzitarelli.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/web02-pike.pdf
I was going to post that too. I believe the mistake was the grammar, not the arithmetic. 50 square miles is a pretty small area, 7 miles square. I believe the phrase should have been “50 miles square (80 kilometers square)”.
The OCO-3 imaging spectrometer appears to be capable of discriminating between CO2 and other atmospheric gases, however it does have a very large pixel, due to the slow charge rate of the imager (and the satellite is going 18,000 miles per hour). The issue here is what Lewis Buckingham alludes to (above), what is the total distribution of CO2 around the earth? Followed by, what is the anthropogenic versus natural component? Followed by, why do we care about plant food which is generally close to the lower limit for life?
At least they term it “Enhancement.”
What’s the status of OCO-2?
So it has taken 11 co-authors and a satellite to find that there are comparatively small spatial variations of X CO2 in the LA Basin and that in inner city LA there are more CO 2 molecules than elsewhere.
Perhaps the authors should be informed-
1.Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
2.CO2 is a natural part of the Earth’s atmosphere (NASA).It is the nutrient of photosynthesis and essential to all life on earth.
3.CO2 levels in the atmosphere are .04% (~419 ppm.) (Source :Mauna Loa).
4.CO2 is not toxic until 5% ( 50,000 ppm) concentration ( Source:Hepple and Benson (2001), “A Review of Human Health and Ecological Risks due to CO2 exposure”).
5.Any detrimental effects of CO2 including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000 ppm) are reversible (Source: op.cit.).
6.OSHA, NIOSH and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5%(5000 ppm.)CO2.
7.Submarine crews live and work in a CO2 enriched environment of 3500 ppm.to 4100 ppm.on average.
8.The area around your mouth on exhaling approximates 40,000 ppm CO2 concentration.
The whole paper is unhelpful.
..and CO2 is a greenhouse gas; human produced CO2 is rapidly changing the climate in ways which damage human civilisation.
You probably need to get Nick Stokes to define damage human civilization that definition will vary from person to person … as far as I am concerned it creates opportunities. As they say adversity is the mother of invention in that it creates incentive and remuneration to adapt.
The trouble with you true believers is you want the world to stay as it was and nature just wont do that it is a constant war and arms race an it never ends … survival of the fittest …. not survival of the nicest or most eco friendly.
Do you have the same difficulties in real life with not being able to comprehend simple arithmetic as you do on here griffibollocks?
You suggesting that a trace gas in trace amounts from human emissions are changing the climate while the same trace gas being emitted in large amounts by the planet doesn’t?
Meanwhile what damages to human civilization are you alluding to?
Prove it.
Human produced CO2 is no different from natural CO2 and there’s no proof is changes the climate. The real danger to human civilisation are useless idiots like yourself
Griff,
In his latest article in The Quarterly, “Green Zero”,the just retired Chief Scientist of Australia states unequivocally that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not toxic.
To call it a pollutant risks trivialising the effect of true pollutants, as he says.
”But it is also a greenhouse gas”, he states.
Quite so, but he then goes awry,quoting Svente Arrhenius and saying ECS is at 5-6% concentration in the atmosphere.
He is unaware that Arrhenius recanted in 1906 ( even allowing for speculation about the effect of water vapour) and cited the figure for halving as1.5C and for doubling 1.6C.
So in his terms it is all down to the impact of the greenhouse effect.
I wrote to him to point out the authorities that show low ECS and TCR including those for Guy Callendar (1938) and through to Lewis and Curry (2018) which shows ECS at 1.6C and TCR at 1.2C.
You are misinformed in your views.
At 417ppm the CO2 level would have to be increased almost twenty-four times its present level to be just one percent of atmosphere. Human produced CO2 is estimated to be five percent or less of the CO2 level. The human produced CO2 level is too small to influence global temperature or climate. I have seen OCO-2 mapping that shows the purported human induced CO2 level of Los Angeles to be one ppm or less.
5ppm in a snapshot is interesting. How quickly does that smooth out?
And let’s be honest here, 5ppm would never be spotted in any proxy like ice cores.
This shows that CO2 emissions are minuscule compared with the background.
Will they accumulate? 5ppm is hardly likely to overwhelm the reservoirs for CO2.
Typical air monitoring stations for pollutants in LA do not measure CO2 but variations corresponding to rush hours could certainly be discerned if they did.
The following link shows good news in that such variations in real pollutants are not observed and their background levels are relatively low.. There does seem to be a pattern with SO2.
https://www.iqair.com/us/usa/california/los-angeles
5 ppm is the change from low to high CO2 over the Mauna Loa region in two years. Why not show this change in time increments of 1 month for 2 years by observations taken over ML?
For some years now, I have been wondering why these climate researchers go to lengths to avoid absolute measurements. Why not show the ppm CO2 in the range 400-450 ppm (or whatever it might be) and drop the reference to comparison with AFRC?
In a similar way, they are timid about talking of CO2 changes in the air over time, using dimensionless ratios of CO2 in calculations like ECS, as an example.
Finally, i have this emerging idea that CO2 like they show on their careful map disappears in days to hours into whatever local sinks are available and never makes it to Mauna Loa. That could be part of the reason like old chemical analyses for CO2 in labs are discounted by climate researchers because they ‘look’ too high. And why CO2 analyses from Barrow, ML, Cape Grim and South Pole are significantly different. and why the Covid lockdown emission reduction fails to show in ML data. It would help solve these potential problem by taking shots over Mauna Loa and those other stations at different times of day (if the sun’s reflections allow much scope) and certainly over large northern hemisphere forested areas that are promoted as the reason for the annual CO2 variation in air.
This topic of OCO and its results has a definite stink of inconvenient or uncertain data that authors are most reluctant to express. Your tax dollars going to waste? Geoff S
There are, of course, multiple other stations at which CO2 is measured globally. Mauna Loa merely has the longest running station, therefore ‘flagship’ reporter
Jeez, I hope they don’t pay you more than minimum wage.
And Mauna Loa shows all the world how horrible the climate is with that much Co2. Is there anybody even left alive in Hawaii?
See here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/22/the-global-co2-lockdown-problem/
for some evidence that i have researched the topic deeper than most people will ever encounter. Geoff S
NASA’s OCO-3 mission is to “investigate important questions about the distribution of carbon dioxide on Earth as it relates to growing urban populations and changing patterns of fossil fuel combustion.” Therefore the raw data will not be shared with the public because it will confuse the narrative that the rising levels of CO2 are “settled science” and the result of human activity.
When Roger Revelle, “the father of global warming,” published smoothly increasing carbon dioxide concentrations measured on Mauna Loa he overcame the inconvenient detail that when measured elsewhere they changed significantly depending on which way the wind was blowing.
Tom,
As explained here –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/22/the-global-co2-lockdown-problem/
Geoff S
They really need it down to house block size so the guilty can be named and shamed. We will then give them yellow stars to wear and send them off to re-education camps.
From the article, LdB:
“Such detailed maps could help policymakers choose the most effective ways of cutting carbon emissions.”
.
.
How long before they come up with the idea to send drones to blast the offending areas off the Earth?
It’s more fun than yellow stars, and very effective.
No if you attack them then you are seen as the aggressor you need to mark them and then quietly take them away for re-education like they did in WWII.
Most of the increasing CO2 in the global atmosphere comes from humans burning fossil fuels for energy
Now if you tap into Duck Duck Go “Most of the increasing CO2 in the global atmosphere comes from natural sources” the top result comes from our old friends at skepticalscience!!!
Even they say “Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions”
So NASA has been, as we English say, “somewhat economical with the truth”
As the computer asked Spock “How do you feel”?
They say:
“Most of the increasing CO2 in the global atmosphere comes from humans burning fossil fuels” and
“a densely populated area”
As humans exhale 4% CO2, how do they discriminate between CO2 from breathing and burning fossil fuels? What is the ratio? Who is John Galt?
Disneyland. A lot of that yellow is right over/downwind of disneyland, lots of over-exited hyperventilating kids running around. Shut it down now!
Not to mention all those carbonated drinks bubbling away…
Carbonated drinks are spiked with CO2….a scandal because the companies all claim to be ESG Woke….flat beverages are a sacrifice that must be made now.
“Most of the increasing CO2 in the global atmosphere comes from humans burning fossil fuels for energy, and 70% of that comes from cities.”
Really…???? With human contribution at ~4-5% of total atmospheric CO2, and warming ocean outgassing along with natural lifecycle processes ignored, how was this statement ever entertained as the bedrock of the study???
Back in the day, they had to give special exemptions for air emissions at LA BBQ restaurants and many of those were minority owned establishments. The next round of satellite upgrades will be able to measure each BBQ firepit for CO2 and check minority status simultaneously.
What kind of a (useless) y-axis unit is “XCO2” ? Implied is a multiple of the background 400 ppm…but this is obviously not correct since previous OCO plots show downtown Las Vegas, for example, with only a couple of ppm increase. So a pixel-fudging artist’s impression maybe?
Yes I think you’ve hit the nail. You’ll probably find that the ‘background’ is 300 or 500 or something inconvenient for the predictable 419.001 settled global narrative.
How do they get square pixels if the data acquisition time is long compared with the orbital speed of the instrument?
I enjoy this website and I come here every day, and multiple times per day, but the amount of inane comment clutter is disappointing. They would be the equivalent on math forum of arguing 2 + 2 = 3. I think the moderators need to clamp down.
Just like Bookface and Tweeter?
This is a science forum, and a place for climate change skeptics to be heard. The presence of people arguing that there is no such thing as the GHE detracts from the credibility of people who actually now what they are talking about, and lends credibility to the alarmists who want to paint skeptics as deniers.
The problem is once you start censorship who decides what posts are banned? Yes there are some stupid comments but is it really less stupid than some of the stuff posted by climate believers .. take Griff as an example would you ban the stupidity he posts?
Science itself doesn’t need protection it is very robust and we can deal with Religious, anti-GR, anti-QM and just about every other nutter you can imagine. What makes science so robust is that in the end it isn’t a popularity contest and you don’t get to vote on what is right and wrong.
The problem is once you start censorship who decides what posts are banned? Yes there are some stupid comments but is it really less stupid than some of the stuff posted by climate believers .. take Griff as an example would you ban the stupidity he posts?
Science itself doesn’t need protection it is very robust and we can deal with Religious, anti-GR, anti-QM and just about every other nutter you can imagine. What makes science so robust is that in the end it isn’t a popularity contest and you don’t get to vote on what is right and wrong.
(Griff is in moderation because he has crossed the policy line in the past, but gets a second chance but all of his comments require moderator approval, most are approved a few are deleted)
SUNMOD
If you give the nutters free rein, then it does become a popularity contest. The site has moderators. I realize I’m asking a lot of them. I haven’t noticed Griff arguing 2 + 2 = 3, but I’ll try to pay closer attention to what he says.
Then you haven’t read much of what griff posts. Just look above at his post regarding
“..and CO2 is a greenhouse gas; human produced CO2 is rapidly changing the climate in ways which damage human civilisation.”
If that isn’t 2+2=3, I don’t know what is.
Yes, that’s definitely 2+2=3 type stuff.
Tom, please name ONE poster here on WUWT that is skeptical of “climate change”.
CAGW, yes, that the climate changes, no.
That any change of the climate is “driven” in any but a VERY MINOR way by the burning fossil fuels, yes.
That the recent warming is a gross negative, yes.
That you want to control the postings on this site, and probably everything else in the world, maybe.
Very few commenters contest GHE; most people contest CO2 based climate models attributions and projections
The advantage of not clamping down is that you’re free to rebut anything that you think to be false. Knowledge is advanced by debate. You might not be able to change the opinion of a zealot but you might sway some people who are on the fence.
I’m not going to debate someone who is arguing 2 + 2 = 3.
Griff will be so disappointed.
Tom:
Slightly OT but James Lindsay did a sarcastic tweet saying the
Critical Race crowd would defend 2 + 2 = 5. And they actually did
try to do so [saying is was ‘white privilege’ and racist].
But I agree; no reason to debate nonsense – but do call it out!
Critical Race Theory is just racism and hatred directed at White People. Directed at innocent White kids, who don’t even know what racism is. But the haters are trying to teach them what it is, or their version of it, anyway.
So, the plan is to shut down West LA. Cool.
No more LAX nor TV/movie scenes at Santa Monica.
No, actually the plan is to make stupid voters think that they’re doing something to “stabilize the climate” so they will vote for them. Meanwhile, they’re laughing their tits off at stupid voters.
A corn field can easily deplete its CO 2 on a still day, those plants starve.
Post says: “… a kind of instrument that analyzes wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum of sunlight to find the spectral “fingerprint” of carbon dioxide.”
They analyze sunlight?
What is it they actually look for that can be counted in the ppm level? And how do they separate CO2 from something else?
HUMANS emit CO2, 24/7 they would be in trouble if they didnt
I guess a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere vs concentrations of people on the ground would show a disturbing correlation something similar to the above image.
Dear Mr Faraday was worried about it 150 years ago and the graph shows that to be the case, or is it really that the inhabitants of LA are burning lots of fossil fuels ?
“Most accurate”? Well, also, most fortuitous. This above image sequence MUST have been taken on one of those relatively rare days when there was no wind blowing through Los Angeles county.
The color-coded CO2 concentration profiles do not appear to have any horizontal displacement with respect to the expected locations of the sources of such. Obviously, this particular data has been cherry-picked for presentation, although I have no reason to believe it is otherwise not data-as-measured and that it indeed be very accurate for that particular time slice.
It’s time….time for an experiment. Build 2 geodesic dome greenhouses about 100 feet in diameter…..airtight with concrete floors….atmospheric CO2 in one and 4000ppm CO2 in the other….monitor temp and humidity and CO2 for a year. No one says a greenhouse models the atmosphere but the result should be interesting.
Decision makers in California! They haven’t done well so far so why hand them something they don’t understand. And shouldn’t they clean up their mess first?
Wow, all that Co2, and yet we are told that the homeless population is exploding exponentially in the Los Angeles area because “the climate is so nice”. More Co2 please!
Really?
Did they bring the CO₂ up to incandescence? Which is how astronomers identify distant gases by using the wavelengths of atoms/molecules brought to incandescence.
Or did they use X-ray spectroscopic analysis? A method which identifies components without bringing them to incandescence.
Or did they “model” the results?
Using some algorithm combing different parameters?
Which brings up the question; how did NASA/NOAA verify and validate their satellite data?
Sounds to me that they have a very good chance of identifying the same molecule of CO₂ repeatedly.
Whatever the method, it should be calibrated…..maybe over the remote Pacific ocean.
I don’t give an aerobatic assignation about CO2.
Any chance the data is contaminated by activities at the Inglewood Oil Field?
Here is a gem while we are thinking about who is emitting what. You will recall the demand that we only count per capita emissions in assigning blame for the coming climate inferno and calculating who has to reduce. Or that we take account of historical emissions when calculating who has to reduce.
Well, here we have from The Intelligencer:
Scrivener noted that China produced more concrete in three years in the 21st century than the U.S. did in the whole of the 20th century. “This emphasizes the point that if we’re going to have an impact on the cement and concrete, we have to work with all these countries worldwide,” she said.
Concrete being a huge emitter globally.
Oh dear, the historical emissions play isn’t going to work. Per capita isn’t working either because China is at EU levels.
What else can we possibly think of to explain why we want everyone but China to reduce to zero?
China leads the world in bridge failures and building failures. Concrete must have the proper mixture and curing or it will fail……no cutting corners like it apparently happens in China.
And as expected LAX doesn’t even show up. Who’d of thought?
The animation video gives us several “swaths.” Hint: Each of these are not from the same orbit. This isn’t real-time data, nor even the same time from one swath to the next. No indication is given just how many orbits of the space station there are between observations, but it does not follow the same ground path from orbit-to-orbit, so each swath could be taken weeks apart.
While they can provide some gross levels of sensor data for comparisons, wIthout weather information, time of day, time of year, and time between sensor readings, these images are nearly useless for policy or environmental management decisions. And what might the sensor show around Mauna Loa or Mount Saint Helens, or Louisiana Bayou, or an Iowa corn field just after planting, or abandoned Venezualan oil fields and refineries? Might those image data contradict current theory?
The real pity is that it is the most accurate data, just totally inadequate. Real-time information on most common atmospheric components, not just CO2, integrated with weather and temperature is what is needed, and decades beyond current technology. But be sure that you will hear that some government official or green creep has this same up-to-the-minute information on which to base her/his tyrannical agenda.
Dk_, you say: “Hint: Each of these are not from the same orbit.” But if you look at the time stamps, the swaths are consistent with the article description where it says that the telescope swivels several times rapidly within two minutes. So the data visualized in the movie is pretty clearly from a single overflight.
Most of the increasing CO2 in the global atmosphere
comesis thought to come from humans burning fossil fuels for energy, and 70% of that comes from cities.what about the human exhaled breath
lots of humans equals lots of carbon dioxide
would be interesting to see other major world cities like Hanoi, London, Mumbai etc that have different densities of humans vs machines
I wonder if they could dedicate one of their sampling sites to a carbon sink, such as a large corn growing region. I have seen some sparse data showing how the air above a growing field is rapidly depleted Of CO2 each day. The data is not well sampled over time (on scales of hourly to a whole growing season) or space, so better data on this process would be rather instructive.
Unlike OCO-2’s polar orbit as part of A-Train constellation with global coverage, OCO-3 science team’s convenient use of ISS-based urban snap-shots is intended to produce propanganda, not global scientific evidence of man’s insignificant CO2 production compared to natural sources.