4 ms·

Not entirely sure, but could be using the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite[0]. This satellite orbits the Earth on the order of ~16 times per

Not entirely sure, but could be using the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite[0]. This satellite orbits the Earth on the order of ~16 times per day which would not be enough granularity for the smoothness of this video, so I assume it's been combined with other weather data and advanced modelling to provide the smooth interpolation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory

mturmon 10y ago
OCO blew up on launch, but OCO-2, its successor, has been producing data since 2014. This nature run was from 2006, which predates the OCO-2 era, and predates GOSAT, another CO2 satellite. It may overlap partly with SCIAMACHY, an ESA mission. But in summary, I don't think the video was heavily constrained by actual CO2 observations, which are done only at a small number of sites on the ground (TCCON or FTIR). The video was probably constructed based on models of plant respiration (which is observed, indirectly, by remote sensing), winds (ditto, of course), and ground emitters. OCO-2 has offered more significant constraints on global CO2, with a roughly 2km x 2km footprint (per pixel), 1ppm accuracy (in a ~400 ppm quantity), and global coverage every 16 days. There are some videos of observations (not models) at: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/ http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  OCO didn't blow up on launch. The payload fairing failed to separate. The vehicle couldn't reach orbit. Doesn't really impact what you're saying (nor does it alleviate the massive embarrassment of Orbital Sciences).
  - mturmon 10y ago
    Sloppy of me! You're right, of course. I knew people who went to see the launch at Vandenberg, and (being on the science team) they were crushed [edited to clarify: metaphorically! -- having spent so much hard work in preparation for eventual results] just a few minutes after launch, so I put it into the wrong mental category.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      "crushed"?

mturmon 10y ago

OCO blew up on launch, but OCO-2, its successor, has been producing data since 2014. This nature run was from 2006, which predates the OCO-2 era, and predates GOSAT, another CO2 satellite. It may overlap partly with SCIAMACHY, an ESA mission. But in summary, I don't think the video was heavily constrained by actual CO2 observations, which are done only at a small number of sites on the ground (TCCON or FTIR). The video was probably constructed based on models of plant respiration (which is observed, indirectly, by remote sensing), winds (ditto, of course), and ground emitters. OCO-2 has offered more significant constraints on global CO2, with a roughly 2km x 2km footprint (per pixel), 1ppm accuracy (in a ~400 ppm quantity), and global coverage every 16 days. There are some videos of observations (not models) at: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/ http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/

engi_nerd 10y ago
OCO didn't blow up on launch. The payload fairing failed to separate. The vehicle couldn't reach orbit. Doesn't really impact what you're saying (nor does it alleviate the massive embarrassment of Orbital Sciences).
- mturmon 10y ago
  Sloppy of me! You're right, of course. I knew people who went to see the launch at Vandenberg, and (being on the science team) they were crushed [edited to clarify: metaphorically! -- having spent so much hard work in preparation for eventual results] just a few minutes after launch, so I put it into the wrong mental category.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    "crushed"?