Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

#AGU14 NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory shows surprising CO2 emissions in Southern Hemisphere
Wattsupwiththat.com ^ | December 20, 2014 | Anthony Watts

Posted on 12/21/2014 9:42:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

 Global Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11, as recorded by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests. Elevated carbon dioxide can also be seen above industrialized Northern Hemisphere regions in China, Europe and North America. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11, as recorded by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests. Elevated carbon dioxide can also be seen above industrialized Northern Hemisphere regions in China, Europe and South America and Africa. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

The first global maps of atmospheric carbon dioxide from NASA’s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission demonstrate its performance and promise, showing elevated carbon dioxide concentrations across the Southern Hemisphere from springtime biomass burning.

At a media briefing today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; Colorado State University (CSU), Fort Collins; and the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, presented the maps of carbon dioxide and a related phenomenon known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and discussed their potential implications.

A global map covering Oct. 1 through Nov. 17 shows elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.

“Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,” said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering, of JPL. The team is comparing these measurements with data from other satellites to clarify how much of the observed concentration is likely due to biomass burning.

The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread. The impact of these activities on global carbon dioxide has not been well quantified. As OCO-2 acquires more data, Eldering said, its Southern Hemisphere measurements could lead to an improved understanding of the relative importance in these regions of photosynthesis in tropical plants, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and biomass burning, which releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The early OCO-2 data hint at some potential surprises to come. “The agreement between OCO-2 and models based on existing carbon dioxide data is remarkably good, but there are some interesting differences,” said Christopher O’Dell, an assistant professor at CSU and member of OCO-2’s science team. “Some of the differences may be due to systematic errors in our measurements, and we are currently in the process of nailing these down. But some of the differences are likely due to gaps in our current knowledge of carbon sources in certain regions — gaps that OCO-2 will help fill in.”

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no distinguishing features to show what its source was. Elevated carbon dioxide over a region could have a natural cause — for example, a drought that reduces plant growth — or a human cause. At today’s briefing, JPL scientist Christian Frankenberg introduced a map using a new type of data analysis from OCO-2 that can help scientists distinguish the gas’s natural sources.

Through photosynthesis, plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and use sunlight to synthesize the carbon into food. Plants end up re-emitting about one percent of the sunlight at longer wavelengths. Using one of OCO-2’s three spectrometer instruments, scientists can measure the re-emitted light, known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF). This measurement complements OCO-2’s carbon dioxide data with information on when and where plants are drawing carbon from the atmosphere.

“Where OCO-2 really excels is the sheer amount of data being collected within a day, about one million measurements across a narrow swath,” Frankenberg said. “For fluorescence, this enables us, for the first time, to look at features on the five- to 10-kilometer scale on a daily basis.” SIF can be measured even through moderately thick clouds, so it will be especially useful in understanding regions like the Amazon where cloud cover thwarts most spaceborne observations.

The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide that OCO-2 seeks to measure are so small that the mission must take unusual precautions to ensure the instrument is free of errors. For that reason, the spacecraft was designed so that it can make an extra maneuver. In addition to gathering a straight line of data like a lawnmower swath, the instrument can point at a single target on the ground for a total of seven minutes as it passes overhead. That requires the spacecraft to turn sideways and make a half cartwheel to keep the target in its sights.

The targets OCO-2 uses are stations in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), a collaborative effort of multiple international institutions. TCCON has been collecting carbon dioxide data for about five years, and its measurements are fully calibrated and extremely accurate. At the same time that OCO-2 targets a TCCON site, a ground-based instrument at the site makes the same measurement. The extent to which the two measurements agree indicates how well calibrated the OCO-2 sensors are.

Additional maps released today showed the results of these targeting maneuvers over two TCCON sites in California and one in Australia. “Early results are very promising,” said Paul Wennberg, a professor at Caltech and head of the TCCON network. “Over the next few months, the team will refine the OCO-2 data, and we anticipate that these comparisons will continue to improve.”

To learn more about OCO-2, visit:

http://oco2.jpl.nasa.gov/

Caltech manages JPL for NASA.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; climatechange; co2; energy; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

CO2 is about 0.04% of the air, and most of that is produced in natural ways other than man’s activities.


21 posted on 12/21/2014 10:57:36 PM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
More from the comments:

*******************************************************EXCERPTS****************************************


22 posted on 12/21/2014 11:02:46 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Just google "palm oil deforestation" for thousands of similar photos....

The amazing thing is that the braniacs at NASA didn't do so.

In fact they don't even need a satellite....just calculate the CO2 for a square mile of jungle going up in smoke ...then multiply that by the square miles of palm plantation that can be seen clearly with Google Maps.

23 posted on 12/21/2014 11:15:30 PM PST by spokeshave (He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
Spokeshave who has been making CO2 since 1942.

(Note to self...get some T-shirts printed with that message)

24 posted on 12/21/2014 11:17:46 PM PST by spokeshave (He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
From the link at bottom of post #22:

****************************************EXCERPT**************************************************

The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

Posted on by
Where Carbon Goes

Where Carbon Goes

Full size image

It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2.

The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. Take a look at the above chart. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?

Some problems:

How do we tell ancient carbon from fossil fuels from ancient carbon from black smokers at the bottom of the ocean? Do we know the isotope ratio of CO2 from mid-ocean ridges vs land volcanoes? (Land volcanoes are from subduction zones so I’d expect more rapid recycle of C from ocean sediment to yield a different isotopic ratio…) This is another example of things we assume we know, that are poorly explained.

In wandering off to learn more about C12 / C13 origins and ratios I ran into this gem. It does raise the interesting question: If human CO2 dropped dramatically during the great depression, where is the signature in the record?

From: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/cockburn

I should acknowledge one imprecision in my description of Dr. Martin Hertzberg’s graph in my first column–“the smoothly rising curve of CO2″–which prompted several intemperate responses, charging that I couldn’t possibly expect CO2 or carbon levels to drop just because of a one-third cut in manmade CO2. Indeed, I should have written, “One could not even see a 1 part per million bump in the smoothly rising curve.” Even though such transitory influences as day and night or seasonal variations in photosynthesis cause clearly visible swings in the curve, the 30 percent drop between 1929 and 1932 caused not a ripple: empirical scientific evidence that the human contribution is in fact less than a fart in a hurricane, as Dr. Hertzberg says.

From the same article by ALEXANDER COCKBURN, with questions:

As for the alleged irrefutable evidence that people caused the last century’s CO2 increase, the “smoking gun” invoked by one of my critics, Dr. Michael Mann, and his fellow fearmongers at realclimate.com, the claim is based on the idea that the normal ratio of heavy to light carbon–that is, the carbon-13 isotope to the lighter carbon-12 isotope, is roughly 1 to 90 in the atmosphere, but in plants there’s a 2 percent lower C13/C12 ratio. So, observing that C13 in the atmosphere has been declining steadily though very slightly since 1850, they claim that this is due to man’s burning of fossil fuels, which are generally believed to be derived from fossilized plant matter.

OK, so both C12 and C13 are stable and they are looking for a ‘plant’ signature in burned fuel, not a nuclear decay signature. One Small Problem… C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Over the last 100 years we’ve planted one heck of a lot more grasses world wide than ever before. Grasses are often C4 metabolism…

Have they allowed for this? If so, how? I’m not sure how one would figure out the C4 vs C3 plant population ratio of the world, and certainly don’t see how you would figure out what it was 1,000,000 years ago.

On the naïve and scientifically silly assumption that the only way that plant-based carbon can get into the atmosphere is by people burning fuels, they exult that here indeed is the smoking gun: Decreases of C13 in the atmosphere mean that our sinful combustions are clearly identifiable as major contributors to the 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1850.

This is misguided, simply because less than a thousandth of the plant-based carbon on earth is bound up in fossil fuel. The rest of the huge remaining tonnages of plant-based carbon are diffused through the oceans, the forests, the grasslands and the soil. In other words, everywhere. Obviously, lots of this C13-deficient carbon has the chance to oxidize into CO2 by paths other than people burning fuel, i.e., the huge amount of plant material that’s naturally eaten or decayed by the biosphere.

And as C4 plants have been sought out (they are more efficient, so more food per growth unit) we get more C13 in the plants. There are even efforts to transplant the C4 genes into C3 plants to get better yield. This would argue for more C13 being sequestered in soils over time as C4 plants have expanded. Have they examined the C12 vs C13 ratio changes in soils over time?

Perhaps even more significant, cold ocean waters absorb lightweight C12 preferentially, resulting in lots of C13-deficient carbon in the oceans. This low-C13 carbon most certainly would have been released massively into the atmosphere over the course of the world’s warming trend since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended.

And would also argue that volcanic emissions from subduction zone volcanoes ought to be C13 deficient to the degree that ocean bottom ooze is being recycled. Has this been considered? Does C12:C13 ratio modulate with the level of volcanic activity?

All of these larger natural pathways for emitting low-C13 carbon into the atmosphere have been considerably accelerated by this same warming trend. So once again, the greenhousers have got it ass-backward. The 100 ppm increase in CO2 can’t be uniquely attributed to humans because at least as plausibly it could be the effect, not the cause, of the warming that started after the Little Ice Age denied by Dr. Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann.

It looks to me like there are very significant issues in trying to assert that C13:C12 ratio changes in the air can tell you anything about CO2 origin in fuel burning… And then there is the question of all the coal burning from natural coal seams (some of them started by lightning). Do we just accept that CO2 as ‘human’ even though we had nothing to do with it?

But at least we know the signature from oil and coal, right?

From: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5272856220314nk/

We get that the C12:C13 ratio is different in oils than in coals and varies in the source lipids from which oil is made. Oh dear. They are all different. That’s going to take some detailed accounting. What? We just burn it without doing the accounting? So how do we know what “our part” does to the C12:C13 ratio then?

Lipid fractions of organisms have consistently lower C13/C12 ratios than do the whole organisms. The average difference between nonlipid and lipid materials for all organisms studied is about 0.5% and ranges in individual species from as little as several hundredths to more than 1.5%. This suggests that petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter in ancient sediments are derived from lipids, or at least from certain components of the lipid fraction. In contrast, coal deposits apparently are derived from whole plants or from the cellulosic fraction of land plants, which is the major nonlipid constituent, of plant tissues.

Has the petroleum and coal from around the world been tested for differences in C12:C13 ratio? I’d expect significant variation based on the above. Is this allowed for in the attribution of atmospheric CO2 to fuel burning?

From a report on natural gas isotopes we get:

Bacteriogenic methane from Illinois generally has a C13 values in the range of -64 to -90% relative to the Peedee Belemnite ( PDB ) standard. The 11 samples from pipelines and storage reservoirs that have been analyzed have all had C13 values in the range of -40 to -46%.

Got that? Bacteria make methane with even less C13 in it than natural gas. So a little swamp gas can look like a whole lot of human generated C13 deficient CO2 once it air oxidizes.

Which seems to show that biological source methane can vary widely in C13 content and that pipeline gas is not the same signature as biological, coal, or petroleum. Has this be allowed for? If so, how? Frankly, given the biological origin variance and that bacteria are more deficient in C13 than natural gas (if I read that statistic right) I don’t see how it’s possible… There are giga-tons of bacteria in the world all emitting different ratios and we have no idea what they are. Great…

(I hand typed the above quote and there was what looked like maybe a sigma in front of the C13’s. Some day I’ll learn how to use Greek.)

It looks to me like there are more holes here than bucket… I don’t see how C12:C13 ratio can be reasonably used to make any clear assertion about where the CO2 in the air comes from.

How much Clathrate out gasses each year on the ocean bottoms? With what C12:C13 ratio? How much natural gas leaks from the ground? What are the ratios for bacteria produced methane from various ecosystems including ocean bottom? Are they all the same? How do you know? Since bacteria have been shown to eat oil and natural gas, how do you distinguish their CO2 from those eating wood? And from human sources?

How about the formation of carbonate deposits in the ocean? This article from Science Daily discusses a recent discovery that the whole history of C12 : C13 may be a bit broken since we don’t really know how carbonate formation tracks against atmospheric concentrations. Oops.

Notice that we are a tiny little rounding error on the surface ocean number (5.5 vs 1020) and even more nearly nothing compared to the deep oceans (5.5 vs 38,100) that we know almost nothing about.

IHMO, it is simply not possible to make sense of the C12:C13 ratio until a great deal more work is done. All the things we don’t know just make it a bald assertion without foundation.


UPDATE: per “fish rocks”. Seems that fin fish poo out carbonate rocks. Who knew? Seems we’re still learning things, large things, about the CO2 cycle…

So, speaking about “what we don’t know about the CO2 in the ocean” there is also this:

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/37370

from January of 2009. A quote or two:

Fish ‘gut-rocks’ solve ocean puzzle

For decades marine scientists have been perplexed by the increase in alkalinity with depth in the top 1000 m of the ocean surface when chemistry suggests this should only take place lower down. But now, a team from the UK, US and Canada reckons excretion of a highly soluble form of carbonate from fish intestines could go some way to solving the mystery.

“Our most conservative estimates suggest three to 15% of the oceans’ carbonates come from fish, but this range could be up to three times higher,” said Rod Wilson of the University of Exeter, UK.

Notice the large ranges? 3% to 15% but maybe 3 x that…

Now what was that you were saying about “it had to come from people” based on some hypothetical ocean CO2 accounting? We haven’t a clue…

“We also know that fish carbonates differ considerably from those produced by plankton,” said Wilson. “Together these findings may help answer a long-standing puzzle facing marine chemists, but they also reveal limitations to our current understanding of the marine carbon cycle.”

The carbonate the fish excrete is high in magnesium and more soluble than the forms of carbonate produced by plankton. As a result it can dissolve at higher levels of the ocean.

Together with colleagues from the University of Miami, University of Ottawa in Canada, University of British Columbia, Canada, and the University of East Anglia, UK, Wilson estimated the total biomass of bony fish in the world’s oceans as between 812 million and 2050 million tonnes, leading to a total carbonate production of around 110 million tonnes.

Again with the 812 to 2050 … kind of a wide range, eh what? Yet we end up with a single nice 110 million tonnes answer… at least it has an ‘around’…

Now here’s a little thought for you:

We’ve reach “Peak Fish” some decade or two ago. (As of now some 30% of all fish eaten is aquacultured so nobody cared much about the Peak Fish crisis… The same kind of thing will happen for Peak Oil.) We are harvesting ocean fish at the fastest rate we can ever harvest them from the ocean. Do you think that maybe hauling billions of pounds of fish out of the ocean might reduce the quantity of carbonate pellets the fish in the ocean can excrete?

Do you think that might leave more CO2 in the ocean to outgas?

Do you think that might raise the CO2 level in the air?

Whether that it A Good Thing or A Bad Thing I’ll leave for another day…

And I wonder if anyone has any idea what the C12 to C13 ratio is in fish rocks for all the different combinations of fish and gut bacteria…

But we ‘know’ that the C12 : C13 ratio tells us the CO2 is from people…

“Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”- Men In Black.


25 posted on 12/21/2014 11:22:18 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

CO2 concentrates in the areas of the world where it does the most good.
****************************
I agree with that. CO2 is food for all plant life. Plant life (flora) gives off Oxygen which is required by all fauna.

The idiots trying to reduce CO2 are just working to kill life on Earth.


26 posted on 12/22/2014 12:10:24 AM PST by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Good catch. Also this.

eastern Brazil

Map shows high concentrations over central and western Brazil, not eastern.

Author appears to be unable to read a map.

27 posted on 12/22/2014 3:22:36 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975
Which is not ‘over northern Australia’. It’s over Indonesia. I don’t understand.

It was a mistake. They meant over Indonesia which is geographically "over" Australia.

28 posted on 12/22/2014 5:32:46 AM PST by Donald Rumsfeld Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: naturalman1975

The lib who wrote the article never heard of ‘Indonesia’. They did know of Australia.


29 posted on 12/22/2014 7:36:06 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

They seem pretty well south of the equator to me.


30 posted on 12/22/2014 7:40:43 AM PST by Lorianne (fed pork, bailouts, gone taxmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for the ping E. Interesting article and follow up URLs
on the CO2 generation processes. Of course as one Freeper made note
the general findings will have no effect on how the GW goons
evaluate just who/what causes increase/decrease in CO2 readings world wide.
31 posted on 12/22/2014 12:07:21 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Galt level is not far away......but alas! Honor must be earned...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson