Antarctic melting

Current OCO2 images look very much like @23. There the lowest value was 389 and the highest 406. This is a range of 17 ppm, and satisfies most as being 'well mixed'.

I don't know how to help the others, but water vapor is much less well mixed, and this is a very important difference.

Remember Keeling the deceased CO2 guy? He went to many places in search of stable, consistent [CO2] within very narrow ranges. Could not find that. Finally set up atop a mountain in middle of Pacific ocean, with not a lot of biological cycling of CO2 nearby (it's an alpine desert). In so doing, discovered the whole planet's atmospheric cycle.

A similar problem was faced by some 19th century chemists, using quite accurate techniques, who found much higher than 400 ppm CO2 in cities of the day. Just as you would find today. This is incorrectly cited as evidence that CO2 has not increased. It could be incorrectly cited as evidence that CO2 is not well mixed. It is, you see. But it is not perfectly well mixed.

It is entirely possible that mojo believes he has proved something with this 17 ppm range graph. I wish clearer thinking to all the others.

 

South pole CO2 data are here

SPO Station Data | Scripps CO2 Program

Annual cycles there differ in interesting ways from the rest of the world.

 

We should be grateful for what we get. Mojo by posting an OCO2 graph indicates he agrees with their data & analyses. Has previously done the same for HADCRUT4 temperature. Has not for CERES energy balance and global water vapor, but watch the other thread for that.

As this list of agreements grows, we can argue less and strategize solutions more.

+++

Now having looked at quite a few global CO2 maps, this 17 ppm total range, with most of the surface area within 10 ppm, seems a consistent feature. This is good to know and not something I sought earlier. It is only mojo's persistent poopy talk that makes it hard to express gratitude for things like this.

It's easy to find a dense city with >600 ppm CO2, or a cornfield with <150. Perhaps we are getting to the point where such local patterns are not conflated with large-scale 'sameness'.

+++ In the lab, where we do experiments and get results from LICOR CO2 analyzers, students need to be taught how to breathe so as not contaminate results. It is a realization of highly variable CO2 concentrations at a very local scale. It is 'clean technique'. Nobody gets to eat potato chips before doing sodium analyses either, for very similar reasons.

 

OCO2 does not pass over the South Pole, but its measurements extend to about 82 degrees S which is pretty close. In the image@23, for Feb/Mar 2015, the furthest-south values ranged from 389 to about 394 ppm.

Surface measurements at the South Pole at the same time were 395 ppm. What are we to make of this (rather small) difference? Surface measurements are taken at local elevation of 3200 meters. OCO2 looks down at 'total column' CO2 by infrared absorption. The algorithm to retrieve [CO2] represents state of the art, but the practitioners would not claim perfection for any particular point of the Earth. Especially not at latitude extremes.

I suppose they are satisfied with these comparisons. If someone here is dissatisfied by a 'miss' somewhere between 1 and 6 ppm, well you're just gonna have to suck it up. This $460 million satellite mission is the best global effort we will have for the foreseeable future.

OK, OCO2 class is over . Go outside and play.

 

Antarctic [CO2] is well known, recent past and current trends. I think we are done with that, or should be.

Its continental T would be scary if as posted @31, which I doubt. These temperatures (stable isotope proxies) inform us about T where the water came from.

I suppose this largest ice hangout is now closer to -30 to -20 oC overall, with no detectable current trend. Happy about that. Some coastal margins are sometimes above freezing, But melting is now at or less than Greenland, Which is a great thing. If the whole continent were close to 0 oC - well, that is not the world you want.

If a few, fragile edge bits fall away, and sea level increases by 20 (100?) cm, the will might be found to slow +CO2. Which would mean getting needed energy in other ways. It would be a stretch, but a refreshing alternative to several types of current silly talk:

600 ppm CO2 will destroy humanity.
350 or below is required
People who are reasonably concerned about unconstrained +CO2 are trying to take over the world.

Silly talk like that.

 

So, we're good, right? global CO2 maps from OCO2 show 17 ppm range at one time of year, and about 5 at another season when things converge.

South Pole most recent measurement posted at Scripps (because the sample analytical chain was verified) was from 2016 January, 396.66 ppm. Most recent prior decadal trend has been 2 ppm per year there.

Good with all that, right?

And the highest Antarctic CO2 satellite about 402 posted above? Good with that as well??

Are we effing done on this tiny matter??

 

Seriously, to any sober folks who might be reading, I have no idea why one of our correspondents wishes to distinguish himself in this way.

These ways.

 

Well mixed. You pick a gas. Avoid the obvious, nitrogen, because it is more analytically difficult than you might imagine. No, better, I pick oxygen. Everybody needs that. Loves that. Is it well mixed? How would you test that? What data would you use?

If data showed all of us that O2 and CO2 were similarly well mixed in the lower troposphere, would you get off this darn distraction? So many other distractions you could play with...