WUWT reader Anna V. alerts us to the preliminary report from the JAXA GOSAT Project. According to the project website:
The Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Project is a joint effort promoted by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).
NIES organized the research team dedicated to the GOSAT project within its organization in April 2004, and since then has been working for the research and development with respect to GOSAT “IBUKI”.
For a complete description of how GOSAT works, please read their summary here (PDF)
First let’s have a look at Global Methane (CH4):
Note that the areas with the most concentration of methane are in China, Middle East, Southern Europe, and Africa.
The real surprise comes from the GOSAT CO2 data analysis. This first global CO2 map released from GOSAT is shown below:
While this is just a short data set comprising a few days from April 20-28th 2009, it does show some surprising features for hotspots of CO2 in the atmosphere over many of the same areas methane had higher concentrations. One difference is that some spots in the Eastern USA, presumably the larger cities, show CO2 hotspots also. From looking at the large CO2 map, it appears Atlanta, Charlotte, and NYC are the three cities in the USA with higher CO2 concentrations.
However, China, India, Southern Europe, the Mideast and Africa have the majority of the CO2 hotspots.
Here’s what JAXA has to say about their CO2 analysis:
Carbon dioxide column averaged dry air mole fractions (XCO2) for clear-sky scenes analyzed using observations at shortwave infrared bands (radiance spectrum uncalibrated data) from the IBUKI greenhouse gas observation sensor (TANSO-FTS). Clear-sky scenes at individual TANSO-FTS observation points are determined using measurements from the cloud/aerosol sensor (TANSO-CAI). Data are excluded where the associated radiance spectra are saturated, and where noise is relatively large due to weak ground surface reflection.
In the initial analysis, the late April observation data shows a hemispheric gradient, with larger values over the Northern Hemisphere (Note 1), consistent with other measurements. Derived XCO2 values are generally lower than model predictions (Note 2). This is thought to be due to the analysis involving uncalibrated radiance spectrum data and due to the parameter adjustment for the analysis method not being finalized. High concentrations are observed over continental China and Central Africa, which may be caused by measurement interference due to the presence of atmospheric dust. Asian dust (yellow sands) were observed over continental China during the observation period, and the existence of dust storm-like and smoke-like phenomena were observed in the relevant locations in Africa. Future investigation is required to understand these errors. Data calibration, processing parameter adjustment, and product validation required for quantitative discussion of the analysis results, will be carried out in the future.
(Note 1) The analysis showed Northern Hemisphere results to be on average around 10 ppm higher than Southern Hemisphere results. An atmospheric transport model calculation predicts the difference between north and south at this time to be 2-4 ppm.
(Note 2) Southern Hemisphere values were on average approximately 17 ppm lower than the model calculation, while Northern Hemisphere latitude band average values were approximately 7-12 ppm lower.
It will be very interesting to see if the hotspot CO2 distribution holds with more data from GOSAT. If it does we’ll be asking the question of why the USA seems to have less CO2 concentrations than other parts of the world. I’m sure it will fuel some political and policy debate.
We’ll be watching for releases of more complete data with better coverage.
I don’t remember where I read it, but measurements of aerosols cannot be taken within a half-mile or so of clouds, because they are swathed in some ionic sheath.
If that’s relevant to anyone.
Dave vs Hal (07:00:57) :
“[The ozzie MP whose been asking for data of CO2 and warming to be shown will be delighted to know that the air over Australia is close to pristine!]
May be a bit different for the next two months as the savanna in the top end catches fire.”
A reasonable probability, like the California fires that with a packet of matches and gallon of gasoline we will have real man-made warming – I wonder if the CO2 peaks after the temperature rise
One the one hand I am happy they are using dots to represent their data and are leaving the rest blank… so it looks like they are NOT extrapolating across large boxed areas of the globe based upon one measurement from a dubious location like the middle of the airport in Guam… if only others were so honest with their temperature maps and anomalies…
But on the other hand they are giving the impression they are measuring CO2 when in fact they a measuring some proxy for CO2 and then trying to calibrate back to a real CO2 figure…. this is dressing mutton up at lamb… and it seems to be the way for all these other scientific measurement from space… so in the end there might be some indicative data… but the calibration, smoothing, rounding, infilling and averaging means that we just end up with hogwash, bull and settled science…. so we are well advised to remember: GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT
No doubt there is some good data and some good science out there…. but with so many charlatans, fraudsters, shysters and bullshiters out there on the gravy train it is hard to tell the difference… Climate and Science are retreating back to the Dark Ages an alarming rate… although the WUWT community is a beacon of light and hope for me in a rapidly dimming world….
Nogw (08:13:38) :
CO2 is _not_ invisible if you can see the right wavelengths. If it were, then this satellite couldn’t measure it. Ditto for methane and H2O. Each id differently colored, none are black in the IR spectrum.
I don’t understand why you claim the CO2 is invisible and then quote something that says it absorbs some wavelengths of light. The whole point of looking at IR colors is because CO2 is invisible in visible light….
The satellite has a clouds and aerosol imager. I anticipate that they will be able to tune it to determine where airborne dust and soot (and DUST and SOOT) are and discard the IR data from those regions.
China – rice paddies, fish ponds and raw sewage outfalls.
I was referring to CH4.
This is a preliminary report and seems to include up-front mention of known problems with the data and its analysis. The project is trying to do something that is new and challenging; the report is informative. This is actual science, unlike much of the public-funded crap we’ve seen in the past 30 years.
Has anyone tried to validate Mauna Loa CO² measurements by taking an analyzer around the world on a boat? I don’t think this would be particularly expensive or difficult relative to, say, Caitlin. Of course, nothing it impossible to the man who doesn’t have to do it himself…
Urederra (04:26:06) :
Also, what are these XCO2 and XCH4 thingies? They hurt my organic chemistry trained eyes.
They are mole fractions (moles per total moles in the system)
So we have some more data which doesn’t agree with the models.
Can the modellers please come to grips with the notion that what we need a model of (if possible) is the earth’s climate; and one that agrees with the properly collected data. It’s that same darn GISStemp problem over and over. They measure a temperature on the concrete outside the Uof Arizona Environmental Sciences Building, and they assume it’s still the same 1200 km away from there.
But when I watch the weather report on the 6PM news, they show that the san Jose, and Livermore temperatures are different, in just a few km of space. So the data says the earth is colder or hotter than it issupposed to be.
No it isn’t, it’s exactly as hot as it is supposed to eb; but then you see whan mother nature makes a model of planet earth, and its surface temperature, she measures the temperature (and everything else) samples much closer than 1200 km; in fact Gaia samples the temperature down at the sub nano metre level, all over the earth surface (and everywhere else).
So how are you going to compete with that. Every single atom or molecule, is a thermometer sampling the local temperature, and Mother Nature doesn’t discard any of that data, in calculating what the temperature and other climate aspects are supposed to be, and she always gets the right answer.
We don’t even come close.
George
Concerning Mauna Loa, Jeffrey A. Glassman (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/) has for years insisted that Mauna Loa was a very poor choice for monitoring CO2. The island lies in the middle of a discharge plume as cool North Pacific water warming on its trip southward swings westward. The warming results in a steady elevation in atmospheric CO2. This map seems to confirm that Mauna Loa overestimates global atmospheric CO2 levels.
“Note that the areas with the most concentration of methane are in China, Middle East, Southern Europe, and Africa.”
Maybe that guy from Germany was right… it seems that people from China, Middle East, Southern Europe, and Africa are farting more… I propose a Global Fart Credit Bank, or a Fart & Tax… you certainly don’t want a Cap & Trade on that.
If at first you don’t succeed,
google google again
This is an article from the horse’s mouth
http://www.jimball.com.au/Features/Cold-facts-about-Global-Warming.pdf
where he says that Milos contributes 1% of volcanic CO2.
Tha 2% of CO2 is an exageration by a science reporter.
It is the only explanation I have for the red CO2 spot over Greece.
jorgekafkazar (11:19:18) :said
“Has anyone tried to validate Mauna Loa CO² measurements by taking an analyzer around the world on a boat?”
Validation of the readings at the time was first done over 150 years ago when scientists took measurements in a huge variety of locations all over the world, from the arctic to the tops of mountains.
The 90000 records referred to by Beck are a fraction of the number that were routinely taken and subsequently discarded. The British Victorians were famous for the meticulous nature by which administrators and scientists recorded information. They knew what they were doing. Keeling himself admitted this.
The following link is from watts up-it is worth reading for its own sake but the comment from ‘Tony Edwards’; is particularly good and links to a talk by Keeling in 1993, reproduced in small part here (the full link is at the bottom of Mr Edwards post). There is also reference elsewhere in the blog to a Victorian book in which CO2 measurements were recorded. (also below) They knew about the means to take measurements and specifically referred to such things as avoiding gas flames.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/beck-on-co2-oceans-are-the-dominant-co2-store/
From Keeling
“In 1804, Theodore de Saussure showed that water was also an essential chemical in photosynthesis, combining with carbon to make actual living matter. He also demonstrated more clearly than Ingen-Housz that the carbon involved in plant growth came from the air. Curious about the carbon dioxide in the air, he made the first detailed measurements of its concentration there, measuring it near Geneva, Switzerland, under different wind conditions, different hours of the day and different months of the year. The mean value that he found was roughly 0.04% by volume,which I will put in modern units as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This value was much less than von Humboldt had found, but still in considerable error.
De Saussure’s Memories, published in 1830, nevertheless ushered in a period of increasingly precise measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide culminating in some nearly correct measurements in the 1880s by a Belgian named Jules Reiset.”
Saussure used accurate equipment, correct methodology, was aware of the need for mixing and the effects of time and location so why does Keeling illogically conclude that the measurements were inaccurate?
The reference to a book is here by Dave Gardner (05:42:27) :
“In response to oldjim wondering what the CO2 values were for Victorian London, there are plenty of old books that give those values. The particular book I’m using is ‘Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of Nature’ by T H Huxley published in 1885, the values converted to ppm are:
On the Thames at London, mean: 343
In the streets of London: 380
Top of Ben Nevis: 327
From the Queen’s Ward, St Thomas’s Hospital: 400
From the Haymarket Theatre, dress circle at 11.30 pm: 757
From Chancery Court, 7 feet from ground: 1930
From underground railway, mean: 1452
From workings in mines, average of 339 samples: 7850
Largest amount in a Cornish mine: 25000
The measurements were carried out by Angus Smith and are originally given in his book ‘Air and Rain’ published in 1872. The above locations are in London apart from Ben Nevis (mountain in Scotland, tallest mountain in UK) and the values recorded in mines. Out of that data, the closest to a background level would be the Ben Nevis value. Beck’s historical instrumental CO2 curve seems to include the Ben Nevis data point.
Rather than what the RealClimate bloggers and ‘Eli Rabbett’ would have you believe, these old CO2 measurers did fully understand that CO2 values varied with location.
One of the criticisms I’ve seen of Beck’s work is that you can’t use European locations to measure background CO2 – you have to go to exotic, out-of-the-way locations like Hawaii and the South Pole. But there are some modern European measurements (on the CDIAC website) recorded at rural locations and these compare very well with Mauna Loa:
My view of Beck’s work is that it’s a fairly honest attempt to compile historical instrumental background CO2 data, and I’m amazed that he seems to have been the first person to attempt to do this, but I suspect that some of his rural locations may not be rural enough.
It does look very suspicious to me that climate scientists prefer to use an elaborate proxy method like ice core data when it would appear to be simpler to use historical instrumental data and possibly then ‘correct’ it to allow for any discrepancy between modern and old-fashioned methods of measuring CO2.
The Victorians were an inventive and thorough people and rapidly advanced their testing methods. Keeling makes reference to Haldane.
http://www.dmm.org.uk/archives/a_obit20.htm
The above link is the obituary of Prof Haldane who created a highly accurate device for measuring carbon dioxide in the 1890’s which was used in mining and medical situations, his obituary confirms his knowledge of the subject.
The following is in connection with his work for the Admiralty measuring co2 levels for divers;
http://www.divernet.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?id=2602&sc=1040&ac=d&an=2602:Grace+under+pressure…
The device he invented became a portable version and was part of the standard equipment in various organisations including hospitals, as can be seen in this inventory;
http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F1919%2FAHRF%208%2F176
The link below is a 1917 study where the means to analyse co2 is taken as the norm and a simple procedure.
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/33/1/47.pdf
All in all people have been measuring co2 in locations round the world for many decades, but all this was thrown overboard when a complete novice at the game -Charles Keeling-produced his own readings in 1957.
Its a strange world.
tonyb
Ric Werme (10:38:58) :
Nogw (08:13:38) :
Thinking it more seriously, thus not taking it as a joke, it seems what they have measured is DUST and SOOT. They should consider that CO2 is invisible, it is not black.
This is interesting:
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
CO2 is _not_ invisible if you can see the right wavelengths. If it were, then this satellite couldn’t measure it. Ditto for methane and H2O. Each id differently colored, none are black in the IR spectrum.
I don’t understand why you claim the CO2 is invisible and then quote something that says it absorbs some wavelengths of light. The whole point of looking at IR colors is because CO2 is invisible in visible light….
The satellite has a clouds and aerosol imager. I anticipate that they will be able to tune it to determine where airborne dust and soot (and DUST and SOOT) are and discard the IR data from those regions.
It is absolutely invisible to the human eye. What’s the color of a breath? It’s a problem of semantics. I could say, the CO2 is undetectable by the human eye, but it could be detectable by the adequate instrumentation.
In = no
Visible = able to be seen.
We can see objects which reflect visible light. Carbon dioxide is colorless, so it is invisible for humans. Instruments have not eyes, so carbon dioxide is invisible even for our instruments.
Our instruments can detect the carbon dioxide; it cannot be seen by our instruments, however.
Well, well… Lot’s of speculation and probably in place caution about this being preliminary and what not, but:
No matter that all the earth isn’t covered and that measurements aren’t calibrated, it does seem to be unrefutable that the ppm varies quite a deal geographically. Or..?
“GOSAT flies at an altitude of approximately 666 km and completes one revolution in about 100 minutes.”
Now that’s fun, a satellite that orbits at 666 km, must be the work of the devil. Sigh. [:)]
Ok, seriously, on page of their “results” report, http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/result/result.htm, pdf file they say that the values for the northern hemisphere are lower than model predictions due to “uncalibrated radiance spectrum data and due to the parameter adjustment for analysis method not being finalized”. That’s a very spooky statement if you ask me. It COULD sound like they are going to try to adjust the equipment and their “software” or “math adjustments” using statistical games again to match the “current predictions” RATHER than accepting the data as it is.
Once again FOR INTEGRITY OF THE SCIENCE and OPEN SOURCE SCIENCE and protection of the public the RAW unaltered data must be made available to the public for review and independent analysis. All “adjustments” aka “fudge factors or equations” MUST BE made available and documented ON ALL PAPERS derived from this GOSAT project. Any less and it’s politics in science as usual. Open Source Science levels the playing field so that full access is granted to ALL interested parties.
I noticed that the project has specific time control of the data sets mentioned on their web site. So again the data seems to be locked up. For how long I wonder?
Oh, the pdf is locked so I could not easily copy and paste text. Talk about paranoid pdf authors. Again a demonstration of control of the information. As they say information is power to promote and distort and “adjust” and “calibrate” the results into “current predictions” as determined by politics rather than whats actually going on. I wonder.
Patrik (12:23:57) :
Well, well… Lot’s of speculation and probably in place caution about this being preliminary and what not, but:
No matter that all the earth isn’t covered and that measurements aren’t calibrated, it does seem to be unrefutable that the ppm varies quite a deal geographically. Or..?
Unfortunatelly, we have not a parallel study before this one; so its validity is questionable.
When the normal parameters for carbon dioxide were stablished some 50 years ago, the standard concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was from 300-600 ppmV; so we can deduce that in some cases those measurements showed higher concentrations of outdoors carbon dioxide than today and that 600 ppmV was considered to be very normal. On the other hand, variations of 300 ppmV were considered also normal.
Carbon dioxide always has varied geographically, isn’t it?
One really wonders why they would bother investing in this project if it all is about validating models and “calibration” and adjustments are needed to fit expectations.
Why not just say “the models are correct” and send the money to the poor? 🙂
A more serious note:
This project promises to reveal just how reliable the Vostok ice core data is when determening past global levels of CO2 and methane. Is there even a modern day measurement series from the area where Vostok resides?
If we will see great divergence (and maybe chaotic such) when comparing Vostok to the rest of the world, then the Vostok ice core data must be deemed useless on a global scale.
pwl (12:53:43) :
Oh, the pdf is locked so I could not easily copy and paste text. Talk about paranoid pdf authors. Again a demonstration of control of the information. As they say information is power to promote and distort and “adjust” and “calibrate” the results into “current predictions” as determined by politics rather than whats actually going on. I wonder.
However we can save both of the above graphs and use them to demonstrate that neither Kyoto nor Copenhaguen are needed.
“No greenhouse gases, japanese satellite shows”
pwl (12:53:43) :
Adding GDP should get the data to fit the predictions quite nicely.
Yeah, lets base a carbon tax on this satellite data.
Something nooo one can verify. What was it Hillary
said: It requires the willing suspension of disbelief.
MalagaView (10:16:46) : dots ??
You make some good points – no question about that. But are these gases not continous variables? Should maps of such not be shown as contour lines?
Where did these spots on the map come from? How large of an area is each dot meant to show. Where is Mexico City? Maybe elevation plays a role.
There is too much about this not yet known. I think these folks started the data release too soon. Give them some time and let’s see what they have next September.
A very large proportion of the sub-Saharan African population still subsists on a “slash-and-burn” method of agriculture. The bush is cut down at the end of the rainy season and when it has dried out it is burned. Grassland (the savannnah) is burned as soon as it is dry enough. That’s where the CO2 and ash particulates come from.
The burning not only provides fertilised soil for next year’s crop, it also drives out a large number of small mammals which provide much-needed protein for the almost starving population.
A large proportion of the sub-Saharan Africans still subsist this way despite the billions of dollars of overseas aid poured into the continent, almost all of which now resides in Swiss bank accounts held by the ‘caring’ politicians of this blighted continent.
How much “Climate Change” compensation do you think would ever reach the population which most needs it?
John F. Hultquist (14:06:22) :
I think these folks started the data release too soon. Give them some time and let’s see what they have next September.
Probaby far too early… so you have to wonder why a project would deliberately damage their reputation and credibility by publishing half-baked, half-arsed results…
But then if you were worried about the results derailing your AGW gravy train then this is exactly what you would do…. didn’t someone say “follow the money”… or more precisely WHO doesnt want us to know what the actual global CO2 levels might really be…
Some years ago fires raged all over south-east Asia and the smoke was visible from space.
Did this produce a spike in Mauna Loa CO2 measurements?
If so how long did it take to be absorbed by the ocean?