An alternate approach that does show these details is that the temperature anomaly is correlated with the rate of increase of CO2. Applying this model to the Mauna Loa data not only shows the overall trend, but also matches the many El Ni?o events that have occurred while satellite data has been available.
Yes, but although there are localized sources of CO2 ,it is fairly well mixed in the atmosphere compared to deniers' favorite greenhouse gas, water vapor. You would first have to separate out the effect of water vapor variability. Until you do would not be able to detect the smaller variability due to CO2.
It would be an interesting thing to try and do, although I think the statistics would be daunting and you would need to measure the integrated water vapor and carbon dioxide to high precision and spatial resolution, along with temperature, then try to tease out the effect from each.
EDIT: I suspect it would be fairly expensive. You would probably want to select two locations close to each other that only differed in the amount of CO2. First you would probably need to do some pre-selection by monitoring the CO2 at various sites to find ones that had significant differences, and even that would be difficult to do, since it's not just the ground level CO2 that matters but also that distributed throughout the atmospheric column. My expertise is NOT in CO2 monitoring, so I don't know how difficult that would be. You are looking for much larger effects than annual variation, though, so there might be relatively inexpensive sensors you could use. However the problem is compounded by the need for column measurements. You might be able to get that from GOSAT or perhaps from ground based measurements, I'm not sure. If you can't, then you would probably mount sensors on UAVs to at least get the boundary layer.
In addition you would need some real-time measurements of column water vapor. You could install a network of GPS sensors or perhaps millimeter wave radar. If you did some calibration you might be able to use IR thermometers instead, which would be a cheaper solution.
Of course you also need meteorological stations at the site, recording data. It would simplify things if you only chose cloudless days and nights, and you would probably want to do this for a long enough time to generate some decent statistics, and look for seasonal effects, so it would probably be a multi-year project.
It sounds like it would be quite expensive. People wonder where the money goes in climate science, but add up what it would cost for something like that you'll find out you're spending a lot of money in no time.
THEY DONT= Global warming ceased to exist 11/28/2012. Global Command/ Mike
No one measures CO2 in high traffic areas CO2 is read as it rises and spreads through the troposphere at Mauna Loa Observatory
heat island effect is caused mainly by the concrete in buildings, roads and sidewalks absorbing the suns direct radiation
**** CO2 rises in the atmosphere almost as soon as it is emitted. High traffic areas are inundated with pollutants. What is measured is Low Level Ozone which is the primary ground level danger. Nitrous Oxides are a danger as well but not commonly measured. The SO2 of course compounds also and results in acid rain which effects lakes and streams adversely as well as getting into our drinking water
I've never noticed a difference, but have there been any actual studies in high traffic areas that show a high temperature increase which factors out the 'heat island effect' from concrete and asphalt?
