From NASA JPL and the department of future CO2 emissions ticketing:
OCO-2 Data to Lead Scientists Forward into the Past
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, which launched on July 2, will soon be providing about 100,000 high-quality measurements each day of carbon dioxide concentrations from around the globe. Atmospheric scientists are excited about that. But to understand the processes that control the amount of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, they need to know more than just where carbon dioxide is now. They need to know where it has been. It takes more than great data to figure that out.
“In a sense, you’re trying to go backward in time and space,” said David Baker, a scientist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. “You’re reversing the flow of the winds to determine when and where the input of carbon at the Earth’s surface had to be to give you the measurements you see now.”
Harry Potter used a magical time turner to travel to the past. Atmospheric scientists use a type of computer model called a chemical transport model. It combines the atmospheric processes found in a climate model with additional information on important chemical compounds, including their reactions, their sources on Earth’s surface and the processes that remove them from the air, known as sinks.
Baker used the example of a forest fire to explain how a chemical transport model works. “Where the fire is, at that point in time, you get a pulse of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning carbon in wood. The model’s winds blow it along, and mixing processes dilute it through the atmosphere. It gradually gets mixed into a wider and wider plume that eventually gets blown around the world.”
Some models can be run backward in time — from a point in the plume back to the fire, in other words — to search for the sources of airborne carbon dioxide. The reactions and processes that must be modeled are so complex that researchers often cycle their chemical transport models backward and forward through the same time period dozens of times, adjusting the model as each set of results reveals new clues. “You basically start crawling toward a solution,” Baker said. “You may not be crawling straight toward the best answer, but you course-correct along the way.”
Lesley Ott, a climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, noted that simulating carbon dioxide’s atmospheric transport correctly is a prerequisite for improving the way global climate models simulate the carbon cycle and how it will change with our changing climate. “If you get the transport piece right, then you can understand the piece about sources and sinks,” she said. “More and better-quality data from OCO-2 are going to create better characterization of global carbon.”
Baker noted that the volume of data provided by OCO-2 will improve knowledge of carbon processes on a finer scale than is currently possible. “With all that coverage, we’ll be able to resolve what’s going on at the regional scale,” Baker said, referring to areas the size of Texas or France. “That will help us understand better how the forests and oceans take up carbon. There are various competing processes, and right now we’re not sure which ones are most important.”
Ott pointed out that improving the way global climate models represent carbon dioxide provides benefits far beyond the scientific research community. “Trying to figure out what national and international responses to climate change should be is really hard,” she said. “Politicians need answers quickly. Right now we have to trust a very small number of carbon dioxide observations. We’re going to have a lot better coverage because so much more data is coming, and we may be able to see in better detail features of the carbon cycle that were missed before.” Taking those OCO-2 data backward in time may be the next step forward on the road to understanding and adapting to climate change.
To learn more about the OCO-2 mission, visit these websites:
NASA monitors Earth’s vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites and ambitious airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth’s interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.
For more information about NASA’s Earth science activities in 2014, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/earthrightnow
OCO-2 is managed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They truly don’t realize how untrustworthy climate models are considered by any sane person able of critical thinking.
Also how will this relate to the age old mantra about CO2 being “well mixed” is anybody’s guess.
Useless people with useless jobs I think.
If my house emits CO2 that is a good thing as CO2 increases the yield of plants.
What an absolute waste of money. I was always glad the climate wonks in NASA seemed apart from the scientists and rocket scientists in proper NASA. Now, sadly they seem to have become a little connected…
From the report:
Harry Potter used a magical time turner to travel to the past. Atmospheric scientists use a type of computer model called a chemical transport model. It combines the atmospheric processes found in a climate model with additional information on important chemical compounds, including their reactions, their sources on Earth’s surface and the processes that remove them from the air, known as sinks.
That first sentence says it all. Harry Potter used a magical time tuner while Atmospheric “scientists” use a magical computer model which itself uses as a component a magical climate model. (one of the four “best” no doubt)
The great thing about computer models is that you can program them to yield whatever answer your bias and your funding masters need to see. I wish they would stop using the word “science” in conjunction with these boys and their computer games.
Measurement is good.
Evidence is good.
I have no argument with the real world; it really doesn’t care about my opinion.
Climate models on the other hand..
“Some models can be run backward in time — from a point in the plume back to the fire, in other words — to search for the sources of airborne carbon dioxide.”
So….you are going to trace the hurricane in China back to the individual butterfly wing in New Mexico? Good Luck with that!
Warning to the Climate Research Unit ( Jones, emails, lost data etc, Norwich, UK) is now also watched from the above
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02983/gods-face0_2983566k.jpg
photo taken just few miles up the road.
I think Google should drive all over the country with CO2 cameras. Then overlay the results on Google Earth. Then we can zoom in on James Hansen, Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, Michael Mann’s, et al’s homes emitting clouds of poison. Clip ’em and put ’em on Facebook.
How many ways do they need to be told, CO/2 is not the problem?
Another waste of taxpayers monies.
That would be better spent on medical research into cancer or any other disease.
NASA – look here:
22 July: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Germany, UK and Poland top ‘dirty 30’ list of EU coal-fired power stations
Environmental study highlights health effects from pollution, with Germany coming top, and the UK third in total coal consumption
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/22/germany-uk-poland-top-dirty-30-list-eu-coal-fired-power-stations
.pdf (17 pages): Panda.org: Europe’s Dirty 30:How the EU’s coal-fired power plants are undermining its climate efforts
This report was researched and written by Kathrin Gutmann from Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, Julia Huscher from Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Darek Urbaniak and Adam White from WWF European Policy Office, Christian Schaible from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Mona Bricke, Climate Alliance Germany.
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/dirty_30_report_finale.pdf
It takes more than great data to figure that out yep, add a few dozen incompetent climate astros along with Gavin and Michael. and ça y est.
Besides being able to plot positive CO2 levels can you ask them also to tune it to look for negative CO2 plumes showing where the CO2 is being absorbed, which appears to happen on a regular annual basis (according to the ML trace).
and I hope they never point the satelite at a forest or two at the wrong time, all that C02 being released would blow the sensors.
I sometimes wonder how these people will handle having all of this expensive and high tech stuff disprove their theory.
Then I realize, their theory was disproved years ago, and they still search fruitlessly for evidence that will never appear. It’s sad, really. Like the lonely ghost ship, adrift on the high seas, ever searching for a lost love…
I’d lay money on all the man made CO2 since the beginning of time being traced back to the western countries, even though, as omnologos points out, what happens with the “well mixed” claims
OCO-2 ( pronounced Oh-CO2 ! ) could help explain why CO2 in the Arctic so closely matches ice area for much of the year.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=970
It should also help explain why the amplitude of annual variation is greatest in the Arctic, not where human emissions are greatest.
This should finally demonstrate that out-gassing and absorption due to temperature change in the oceans is a key factor in atmospheric CO2 not an insignificant 10 ppmv as is currently proposed.
Oops, wrong plot
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=996
Well, only that what was missing to advance the modern anthropocentric age to conclusion – it can finally be compared to a teenager using the latest iPhone to take blackhead discovering selfies.
Full graph of which the above is a close up:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=997
Most of the short term variability in Arctic CO2 seems to be accounted for by ice area ( SST being very stable in the presence of and ice/water mix. )
This leaves about 0.82 ppmv/year gradual rise that may be attributable to human emissions AND SST variations in ice-free parts of the North Atlantic.
pat says:
July 23, 2014 at 1:10 am
NASA – look here:
22 July: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Germany, UK and Poland top ‘dirty 30’ list of EU coal-fired power stations
Environmental study highlights health effects from pollution, with Germany coming top, and the UK third in total coal consumption
=====
And when Britain started to construct a clean, modern, coal power stations at Kingsnorth in Kent … it got stopped because of protests from the enviros.
So the deliberate attempts to refer to a colourless, odourless, non toxic gas as “dirty”, ends up by causing more emissions of REAL pollutants coming from older coal fired power stations.
Head meets arse .. “can I come in?”
omnologos says:
They truly don’t realize how untrustworthy climate models are considered by any sane person able of critical thinking. Also how will this relate to the age old mantra about CO2 being “well mixed” is anybody’s guess.
===
Well mixed does not mean perfectly uniform the world over. Nothing at all in climate conforms to that.
Variations of a few ppmv in a total of 400 means that CO2 is “well mixed”.
Studying geographic deviations from the well mixed level should tell us about sources and sinks and the carbon cycle.
This could be very informative but it seems clear the major aim of this satellite will be finger pointing.
pat says: July 23, 2014 at 1:10 am
………….
or this
Tilbury power station mothballed after investment burns out
RWE Npower-owned Tilbury, claimed to be biggest biomass plant in the world providing 10% of Britain’s renewable power
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/16/tilbury-power-station-mothballed
Here is the settled science of the IPCC.
I vaguely recall that co2 is a “Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas” [IPCC].
I vaguely recall that NASA said that c02 in the atmosphere “is rather “lumpy.” [NASA JPL]
Here are some preliminary results for Co2 hotspots from around the world. The Sahara is a great emitter of Co2, the USA not as much. We must act now.
Cue – ‘Oh the wayward wind is a restless wind”
A question for the boffins, we know that hot CO2 rises , evidenced by hot air balloons ,if CO2 is unencumbered by excess baggage like balloons,at what speed would it rise to achieve an equilibrium in temperature and how high would have to go to attain that equilibrium?