"We can already clearly see patterns of seasonal change and variations in carbon dioxide around the globe," said Annmarie Eldering, OCO-2 deputy project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "Far more subtle features are expected to emerge over time."...
...Through most of OCO-2's first year in space, the mission team was busy calibrating its science instrument, learning how to process its massive amount of data, and delivering data products to NASA's Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES-DISC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, for distribution to the world’s science community.
Scientists are comparing OCO-2 data to ground-based measurements to validate the satellite data and tie it to internationally accepted standards for accuracy and precision.
CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Notice the legend - it spans just 15 parts per million by volume, from 390 to 405 ppmv. And I don't think the colours hit the extremes at any point during the year (you can check for yourself). It gets drawn down into plants on land and in the ocean and then released again as the seasons change.
More from the press release:
The first year of data from the mission reveals a portrait of a dynamic, living planet. Between mid-May and mid-July 2015, OCO-2 saw a dramatic reduction in the abundance of atmospheric carbon dioxide across the northern hemisphere, as plants on land sprang to life and began rapidly absorbing carbon dioxide from the air to form new leaves, stems and roots. During this intense, two-month period, known as the “spring drawdown,” OCO-2 measurements show the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over much of the northern hemisphere decreased by two to three percent. That's 8 to 12 parts per million out of the global average background concentration of 400 parts per million.
From the WUWT comments
While Anthony Watts is still on his sabbatical or wherever (he popped in briefly to say "thanks"), Ric Werme has posted an article about this at WUWT (archived here, cached here), which generated a lot of comments. There was a bit of a scrum, with some deniers wanting to show they are not at the extreme end of nuttery, unlike most at WUWT.
High Treason decides there's a conspiracy:
November 4, 2015 at 3:50 pm
The CO2 levels do not seem to coincide terribly much with human activity. Perhaps the delay is to allow manipulation of the data to fit the political narrative-how Lysenkoid. What would be more useful is to link CO2 levels from a particular area with plant growth rates to see if the 5ppm spread makes much difference to plant nutrition.
Piotr figures the satellite instruments are not finely tuned, in a logical fallacy of personal incredulity:
November 4, 2015 at 3:50 pm
I note the scale of different colours is not linear, (2,3,2,3,2,5 ppm for equivalent appearing changes in colour), and also the change from green to red represents a change of only 4 ppm from 398(ish) to 402. I have doubts that their satellite based instrument is genuinely accurate to that level with any reliability, and in any event that is such a miniscule change in magnitude of an already small number…
M Seward sniggers nervously. He or she is wrong about the modeling. The more complex climate models do include vegetation:
November 4, 2015 at 3:54 pm
The ‘pull down’ of CO2 by plants in the northern spring must mean a huge concurrent energy storage as the endothermic plant chemistry stores very large amounts of energy in the chemical donds.
Not to mention all the transpiration that must take place as part of that, shunting LHV to the upper atmosphere.
And I gather the geniuses don’t even ‘model’ that. LOL.
I don't know what Nicholas Schroeder is trying to argue, or where he gets his numbers from. Each year we're pouring around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air.
November 4, 2015 at 4:09 pm
The major global C/CO2 reservoirs (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2), i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 42,000 Pg (Gt) of C/CO2. Over 90% of this C/CO2 reserve is in the oceans. Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C/CO2 per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C/CO2 for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C/CO2. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of years, now unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.
So just how much net C/CO2 does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption add to this perfectly balanced 42,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C/CO2? 3 Gt C/CO2. That’s correct, 3. Not 3,000, not 300, 3! How are we supposed to take this seriously?
tomo is cautiously telling everyone she or he knows there's a climate conspiracy, else why would anyone want to know about CO2 sources and sinks just when the world leaders are gathering to discuss how to address the problem?
November 4, 2015 at 4:14 pm
One has to wonder about timing and COP21 and the interpretation of the OCO-2 results….
There is – I think – some cause to be wary about this……
temp isn't suggesting the data is wrong, just that the scientists are conspiring to spin it:
November 4, 2015 at 4:48 pm
If you review some of the still frames they released back in Nov and compare them to the model run you’ll see that are basically reversed. Their is a huge band of CO2 just where the “missing data” line is in the south. Its highly likely they haven’t figured out how to spin that data yet and because its the complete opposite of what was predicted by models they don’t want people pointing out the fact they are @ss backwards.
Latitude has almost learnt something about CO2 and photosynthesis, if only she or he could figure it out:
November 4, 2015 at 4:49 pm
so plants are pulling down more CO2 than we are emitting..
…for some reason those satellites are not orbiting over the poles
gee, I just don’t know what to make of this
Dog sez he knows that WUWT-ers are utter nutters, but thinks they make more noise than the majority. (Did I get that right?):
November 4, 2015 at 6:25 pm
I mean we already know that 0.3% of climatologists are either nut jobs or worse. And it’s well known that the loudest voices on the net are the minorities (the 0.3%)…Not just in science, but pretty much everywhere. Time and time again, you’ll read that the loudest voices are those who complain as opposed to those who don’t….
If the minority is always going to be the loudest, then how do we get the majority to become louder than them?