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.
Ferdinand, from your post:
From the satellite temperature derived data, we know that the temperatures fluctuate from the tropics to the poles, ground to troposphere and opposite above it, so that we have different avarages for every slice in all three dimensions. Further temperature changes hour by hour, with and without clouds,…
you could be describing CO2 also , since you say :”And there is surely no CO2 “UHI” effect, as even with 1,120 ppmv in the first 1,000 meters, “, i.e. a three dimensional gradient.
Physics tells us that CO2 is heavy.
It tells us about ways of dispersion but still there should be the gradient of molecular weight.
The “well mixed” is a hypothesis inbuilt even in this GOSAT presentation because it uses this “column” logic.
We should once more agree to disagree on this subject, because I will not be convinced unless I see a three dimensional representation of CO2 density too.
to Ferdinand and rr Kampen
I am astonished at your posts. I do not know your backgrounds.
Let me ask you:
is it true that co2 has a 150 year residence time?
is it true that co2 is well mixed, over weeks to months?
is it true that the atmosphere has a fixed volume whose variation is immaterial to the measurement of co2 concentrations?
anna v (20:21:32) :
CO2 is well mixed… except near huge sources and sinks, which is on land near cars, chimneys, soil (bacteria) and green leaves.
The 1120 ppmv is a theoretical example (not measured anywhere) to calculate what effect that would have on (local) temperature: simply unmeasurable.
Indeed CO2 is heavier than air, but that only plays a (sometimes deadly) role near huge sources like some volcanic vents. If there is sufficient wind or heat disturbance, CO2 is readily mixed with overlying air layers and reaches “background” level within minutes to hours.
All gases from very heavy (e.g. CFC’s) to very light (e.g. hydrogen) mix with air when there is sufficient turbulence and stay mixed, as the movement/collisions of gas molecules in general prevent a separation.
Even without disturbances, CO2 mixes rapidely with air, as a test from 1927 could prove, see: http://www.jbc.org/content/73/2/379.full.pdf
Much is known of the vertical profile of CO2 in an air column, from measurements by tall towers (up to 200 m) and air flights. Below a few hundred to 1,000 m over land there is a chaotic mix of different trace gases, above 500-1,000 m you will find only background levels. See e.g.:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/cabauw_day_week.jpg (Cabauw, Netherlands)
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg (1963-1976 Scandinavia flights)
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/inversion_co2.jpg (Colorado vertical profile)
peerreviewer (22:04:17) :
I have a BSc in chemical engineering, but half my work (now retired) was on MSc level (chemical) process automation engineering…
1. The 150 years residence time of CO2.
Any molecule of CO2 (whatever the origin) has an average residence time of about 5.2 years in the atmosphere. That is governed by the exchange rate of about 150 GtC/year from/to oceans and biosphere with the 800 GtC residing in the atmosphere as CO2.
The excess sink rate, that is the time which is needed to reduce the 380 ppmv we have now (whatever the cause), back to the 280 ppmv at the start of the industrial revolution. That is about 40 years to halve the difference, if we should stop all emissions today. That is governed by the amount of CO2 absorbed by oceans and vegetation, which is currently about 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year).
Many skeptics are confused by the first residence time, which shows the probability that a human induced CO2 molecule still resides in the atmosphere, while only the second “residence time”, how long an excess amount of CO2 stays in the atmosphere is of importance.
The IPCC uses the second definition, but with a mix of sink rates (depending of the kind of sink), where the last 10% of an excess CO2 injection stays in the atmosphere near forever. That is only of importance of we burn all available oil and most of all coal. But that is far from realistic in current circumstances.
2. CO2 mixing.
Near ground, it mixes well, but there are permanent and intermittent sources and sinks at work, thus near ground you will not find steady values.
At sea there are no fast sinks or sources, and the sea itself is a slow source (in mid-latitude summer and tropics) and sink (in mid-latitude winters and at the poles). This makes that there is little variation over a day at sea, but there is a seasonal amplitude in the NH of +/- 8 ppmv, mainly caused by vegetation growth and decay. The opposite amplitude caused by the oceans warming and cooling plays a minor role. At height, this seasonal amplitude is less pronounced (+/- 4 ppmv at MLO). In the SH the seasonal amplitude is near absent (+/- 1 ppmv) see the (cleaned) monthly averages of different latitudes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
For yearly averages, the differences are minimal and the trend is near identical for all places, away from huge sinks/sources, where is measured.
Thus “well mixed” is not the case in 5% of the atmosphere (near ground over land) and exists with a seasonal amplitude, mainly near surface in the NH, for 95% of the atmosphere.
3. Fixed volume atmosphere.
As far as I know, there are some variations in the volumes of the different slices (troposphere, stratosphere,…) of the atmosphere. That plays no role in the determination of CO2 levels, as these are expressed as ppmv (thus volume of CO2 in volume air, which changes together) in dry air. The latter is more important.
Uh, I don’t think the Arctic was sampled, at all, for methane. White means not sampled, right?
This is preliminary data from only about a week of sampling, right?
So, we don’t really know what’s happening in the Arctic, right?
Re: peerreviewer (22:04:17) :
“to Ferdinand and rr Kampen
I am astonished at your posts. I do not know your backgrounds.”
Bsc physics/mathematics, specialization meteorology/oceanograhpy. I could work as a meteorologist though past years to now I’m in software quality assurance.
“is it true that the atmosphere has a fixed volume …”
No, over past decennia the volume must have increased a little by thermal expansion… Average air pressure remains unchanged so there’s no or very little change in total atmophere mass. As Ferdinand explained this is no factor in CO2-concentration figures because they are given in ‘parts per million’.
It seems that a new calibration is done 18/9, but still, it doesnt change that the CO2 concentrations are way lower than Mauna Loa. There will be more calibrating?
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html