Replies

I'm looking at the maps on this page:

Especially to this one:

which is said to show Net Primary Production from 1951-2001.

As I understand it, NPP shows where most carbon dioxide is turned by photoynthesis into chemical energy.

To my completely layman eyes, it looks like the areas that the map you've shared here, matches this NPP map pretty well.

And that to me would seem to suggest a mechanism by which CO2 concentrates in the areas of the world where it does the most good.

I'm not an expert of any sort on this. I just notice this and wonder what is going on. I may be completely misunderstanding both maps.

From the comments:

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

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

December 21, 2014 at 1:46 am

Not (yet) for today’s satellite, but if the data are getting more and more accurate and the satellite has features to concentrate on “hot spots” like populated areas or forests, the possibilities of exact source/sink determination are increasing.
About determination of the global source, here two graphs that show the influence of vegetation and humans:
This shows the opposite δ13C and CO2 rate of changes, slightly after the temperature variations: CO2/δ13C follow temperature changes as can be seen for the 1998 El Niño in opposite ways. That shows that the (tropical) forests are the main cause of both changes. If the extra CO2 increase was from the oceans, the CO2 and δ13C changes would be in the same direction, as the δ13C level from oceanic CO2 is higher than of the atmosphere.
Over longer term, humans are the cause of the δ13C decline, as the contribution from the biosphere and oceans is positive in δ13C:

Preceding comments to what I poated im #17:

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

Tom J says:

December 20, 2014 at 12:55 pm

The revenue generating mystery novel needs a mysterious, and changing villain if the public is to be constantly coaxed into dispensing hard earned money.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

December 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm

Tom, the satellite doesn’t measure isotopes, it only measures total CO2. But if you look at the isotopes (taken at many places on earth), there is a firm decline in “heavy” 13CO2. That has two main possible sources: new biological carbon and fossil biological carbon (and maybe some a-biological too). But the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 (~1 GtC/year), thus not the cause of the 13C decline…
The decline of 13C exactly follows human emissions, be it at about 1/3rd of the theoretical decline, if it all remained in the atmosphere. As there is a lot of exchange with other reservoirs, mainly the deep oceans, a large part of the low-13CO2 from burning fossil fuels is replaced by high-13CO2 from the oceans.
Drought (in the tropics) also shows up both in the CO2 rate of change as in the 13C rate of change: while the rate of change increases during an El Niño, the 13C rate of change drops and vv., but that are temporarily wiggles which last maximum 2-3 years. Anyway, those wiggles are clearly caused by vegetation (decay goes on while growth is suppressed), but on longer term, vegetation is a net sink for CO2 and preferably 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere…

Reply
- Tom Moran says:
  
  December 20, 2014 at 6:29 pm
  
  “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no distinguishing features to show what its source was.”
  So then the quote from the post is not factual? We can measure atmospheric CO2 and precisely determine its source?

More from the comments:

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

Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

December 21, 2014 at 3:58 am

Tom, the satellite doesn’t measure isotopes, it only measures total CO2. But if you look at the isotopes (taken at many places on earth), there is a firm decline in “heavy” 13CO2. That has two main possible sources: new biological carbon and fossil biological carbon (and maybe some a-biological too). But the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 (~1 GtC/year), thus not the cause of the 13C decline…

Whether OCO2-mission measures carbon isotopes or not, the OCO2-images are currently questioning western civilization as the main source of CO2. At least UK seems to be a carbon sink currently.
It’s not the only reason why IMO there is little point pinning 12C sources on fossil biological carbon. 12C is reputed the 4th most common element in our solar system. It is pretty safe to claim that most of it is inorganic – at least according to NASA there are no fossils in Mars. Biosphere is not a very big share of Earth’s mass. Assuming so fundamentally different 12C rules on Earth only undermines the confidence in the anthropocentric understanding of the processes, including carbon sinks.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

December 21, 2014 at 5:05 am

Jaakko, don’t jump to conclusions based on only 1.5 months of data…
The main CO2 movements in/through the atmosphere are over the seasons: some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs. The point is that this is exchange, while human CO2 is additional and the natural cycle is slightly more sink than source (about halve the human input).
The isotope measurements are interesting, as they look at the ratio of the heavy 13C isotope (about 1% of total C) and the lighter 12C isotope. As plants use preferentially 12CO2 over 13CO2, the 13C/12C ratio is (much) smaller in plants (and who feed on plants) than in the atmosphere. As all coal and most oil and gas were made by bio-life, these have a (much) lower 13C/12C ratio than what is measured in the atmosphere.
The difference between the two main sources can be made on the presence of radioactive 14C (absent in fossil fuels: too old) and the oxygen balance: some less oxygen is used than expected from fossil fuel burning. Thus the biosphere as a whole is a net absorber of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2…
Almost all abiotic CO2 has a slightly higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere: oceans, volcanoes, carbonate rocks… Therefore one can know which one of the two is dominant, besides the human addition.
The mix in the atmosphere didn’t change much over ice ages: a few tenths of a per mil, until the past 160 years, which means that the pre-industrial CO2 changes were dominated by the oceans, but since ~1860, humans emissions are increasingly dominant, both in the atmosphere and the ocean surface layer:
Hoser says:

December 21, 2014 at 7:42 am

Glaciers started melting about 1850. We did that too? I think not.There are natural 13C sources. Correlation does not demonstrate causality.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

December 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Hoser, there are only two known huge sources of low 13C: new organics and fossil organics. All other known sources are higher in 13C level than the atmosphere. Thus as the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere is in free fall, that is either from fossil fuels burning or from burning about 1/3rd of all land vegetation…
From the oxygen balance we know that land vegetation is increasing: the earth is greening…
Tom Moran says:

December 21, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Thank you Ferdinand. In Dr. Tim Balls post today on WUWT I’m came across this link from a comment on C12/13 https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/