From NCAR/UCAR:
First global portrait of greenhouse gases emerges from pole-to-pole flights
BOULDER—A three-year series of research flights from the Arctic to the Antarctic has successfully produced an unprecedented portrait of greenhouse gases and particles in the atmosphere, scientists announced today. The far-reaching field project, known as HIPPO, is enabling researchers to generate the first detailed mapping of the global distribution of gases and particles that affect Earth’s climate.
The series of flights, which come to an end next week, mark an important milestone as scientists work toward targeting both the sources of greenhouse gases and the natural processes that draw the gases back out of the atmosphere.
“Tracking carbon dioxide and other gases with only surface measurements has been like snorkeling with a really foggy mask,” says Britton Stephens, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and one of the project’s principal investigators. “Finally, HIPPO is giving us a clear view of what’s really out there.”
“With HIPPO, we now have views of whole slices of the atmosphere,” says Steven Wofsy, HIPPO principal investigator and atmospheric and environmental professor at Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. “We’ve been quite surprised by the abundance of certain atmospheric components and the locations where they are most common.”
The three-year campaign has relied on the powerful capabilities of a specially equipped Gulfstream V aircraft, owned by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and operated by NCAR. The research jet, known as the High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER), has a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kilometers). It is outfitted with a suite of specially designed instruments to sample a broad range of atmospheric constituents.
The flights have helped scientists compile extraordinary detail about the atmosphere. The research team has studied air samples at different latitudes during various seasons from altitudes of 500 feet (150 meters) above Earth’s surface up to as high as 45,000 feet (13,750 meters), into the lower stratosphere.
HIPPO, which stands for HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations, brings together scientists from organizations across the nation, including NCAR, Harvard University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the University of Miami, and Princeton University. NSF, which is NCAR’s sponsor, and NOAA are funding the project.
Surprises on the way to a global picture
The first of the five HIPPO missions began in January 2009. Two subsequent missions were launched in 2010, and two in 2011. The final mission comes to an end on September 9, as the aircraft returns from the Arctic to Anchorage and then to its home base at NCAR’s Research Aviation Facility near Boulder.
Each of the missions took the research team from Colorado to Alaska and the Arctic Circle, then south over the Pacific to New Zealand and near Antarctica. The flights took place at different times of year, resulting in a range of seasonal snapshots of concentrations of greenhouse gases. The research was designed to help answer such questions as why atmospheric levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have tripled since the Industrial Age and are on the rise again after leveling off in the 1990s. Scientists also studied how logging and regrowth in northern boreal forests and tropical rain forests are affecting levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Such research will provide a baseline against which to evaluate the success of efforts to curb CO2 emissions and to enhance natural CO2 uptake and storage.
The team measured a total of over 80 gases and particles in the atmosphere.
One of HIPPO’s most significant accomplishments has been quantifying the seasonal amounts of CO2 taken up and released by land plants and the oceans. Those measurements will help scientists produce more accurate estimates of the annual cycle of carbon dioxide in and out of the atmosphere and how the increasing amount of this gas is influenced by both the natural world and society.
The team also found that black carbon particles—emitted by diesel engines, industrial processes, and fires—are more widely distributed in the atmosphere than previously thought. Such particles can affect climate in various ways, such as directly absorbing solar radiation, influencing the formation of clouds or enhancing melt rates when they are deposited on ice or snow.
“What we didn’t anticipate were the very high levels of black carbon we observed in plumes of air sweeping over the central Pacific toward the U.S. West Coast,” says NOAA scientist Ryan Spackman, a member of the HIPPO research team. “Levels were comparable with those measured in megacities such as Houston or Los Angeles. This suggests that western Pacific sources of black carbon are significant and that atmospheric transport of the material is efficient.”
Researchers were also surprised to find larger-than-expected concentrations of nitrous oxide high in the tropical atmosphere. The finding has significant environmental implications because the gas both traps heat and contributes to the thinning of the ozone layer. Nitrous oxide levels have been increasing for decades in part because of the intensive use of nitrogen fertilizer for agriculture. The abundance of the gas high in the tropical atmosphere may be a sign that storms are carrying it aloft from sources in Southeast Asia.
Balancing the carbon budget
The task of understanding how carbon cycles through the Earth system, known as “balancing the carbon budget,” is gaining urgency as policy makers discuss strategies to limit greenhouse gases. Some countries or regions could be rewarded with carbon credits for taking steps such as preserving forests believed to absorb carbon dioxide.
“Carbon markets and emission offset projects are moving ahead, but we still have imperfect knowledge of where human-emitted carbon dioxide is ending up,” NCAR’s Stephens says.
Before HIPPO, scientists primarily used ground stations to determine the distribution of sources of atmospheric CO2 and “sinks” that reabsorb some of the gas back into the land and oceans. But ground stations can be separated by thousands of miles, which hinders the ability to measure CO2 in specific locations. To estimate how the gas is distributed vertically, scientists have had to rely on computer models, which will now be improved with HIPPO data.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been railing on about black carbon for 6 years now. It’s pathetic that activists are not making this enemy #1. Still fighting the battles of 90’s.
REPLY: Soot is far easier to limit and manage than CO2, but since the USA’s EPA standards have pretty much eliminated soot, it can’t be taxed or fined much, so they go after CO2 – Anthony
The contents of the atmosphere seem entirely irrelevant when it comes to ambient temperatures over time. The reason for this has been excellently summarised by Harry Dale Huffman at;
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html#comments
Black carbon particles – what, a Henry Ford particle ?
Hansen was a co-author of a 2002 paper on black carbon ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Menon_etal_2.pdf ) and concluded it needed further studies as the evidence was pointing to it as a “bad actor”
While they marvel over their treasure trove of actual data (for a change!)
they don’t miss a chance to recite the AGW catechism.
Just because they actually measure CO2
we’re supposed to fall for their anti-doomsday follies.
The soot results, however, are another blow to their meme
’20th century warming was all due to CO2′
With the coming Grand Minimum, however, we may need that soot’s extra warming!
The article says that soot directly absorbs solar radiation, but does not mention that it is also a good blackbody emitter. Considering the low concentration in the atmosphere, is it a net absorber or a net emitter? And how do we know?
If I was to guess, when the air temperature is above 5C it is a net emitter (causing local cooling), and a net absorber at lower temperatures.
Well all we have to do is sell the 3rd world the wests efficient coal fired power station technology, and the soot would be gone.
Oh Sorry, did I blasfeam?
So how does this soot compare to cosmic rays as cloud droplet nuclei?
Less, more, same, much more, much less?
So nitrous oxide is another gas that traps heat! Someone tell them to employ a physicist who will be able to explain to them what a gas is.
Since the early 1980s diesel engines in Europe have been steadily and progressively “cleaned up” by imposing ever stricter emission controls. I drove a diesel car for several years, but eventually had to scrap it as changes to the emission laws meant it could not comply. It had a Euro II engine which was, for its time, pretty clean. We are now mostly running on Euro IV engines and even cleaner machines are in the pipeline. As Anthony says, cleaning up the soot from the diesel engine is relatively easy – if there is the political will to do so. Any visit to the Far East or to certain Middle Eastern countries where the strict control of emissions is a matter of “what?” confirms that the engines still in use in these areas fail to comply with even the most basic adjustments…
Manila’s buses, Tehran’s traffic (buses and lorries no longer permissible in Europe!), Bangkok’s traffic, Jakarta, Dehli or wherever – now you’re talking sooty exhaust emission!
So now we can start a whole new international exchange structure selling nitrogen indulgences and a bunch of websites where we can calculate our nitrogen footprint when deciding to eat beef or chicken for dinner. 😉
Good to see some useful research is being done. Sometimes we focus too much on mickey mouse science of the likes of Mann and get the impression the whole science budget is a waste of money.
The last paragraph said it all. Better models coming. Yeah, right.
More of the usual methane BS stuck in there, I see. Methane’s fingerprint absorption spectrum is miniscule compared to either CO2 or H2O. The usual trope about it being 20X as potent as CO2 actually refers to the combustion products of CH4 IF it were burned, which are of course 1xCO2 and 2xH2O, the sum of whose GH effects are about 20x those of a single CO2 molecule.
Climate Science: Mendacity all the way down.
I am liking this “collecting data” thing.
Of course there is alway the possibility that the raw data will be adjusted to conform to the models but, somewhere in the HIPPO program there will be actual, unadjusted data and that is what climate science in the true sense of the word science needs.
The three-year campaign
Campaign seems a strange word to use for a series of measurement flights. I expect much of this Asia-bashing as we near the end of Kyoto. Meanwhile, since 2005, new Chinese coal-fired power stations are fitted with state-of-the-art SO2 scrubbers, and they are retrofitting the old stations.
Considering the size of the atmosphere, 5 flights do not seem to be yield relatively much actual data. So little data and much extrapolation/modelling seems the case. Maybe they haven’t heard of E. Lorenz or H. Poincare. Drowned polar bears come to mind.
The science is settled then?
why atmospheric levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have tripled since the Industrial Age and are on the rise again after leveling off in the 1990s.
I can answer that.
Increased use of natural gas results in more methane leakage. In large part as a result of efforts to tax and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas produces substantially less CO2 emissions than coal.
Another significant factor will be the Obama administration scaling back of GW Bush’s Methane to Markets program, which funded efforts to reduce methane emissions.
Although the Left goes into meltdown at the mere mention of this program. They are horrified by the suggestion that GWB was the only politician that actually did something constructive to limit GHG warming.
So what does their data say about Carbon Dioxide? Nothing about it being ‘well-distributed’, all that emphasis is on other stuff they found, but about its seasonal production which is what has been successfully measured for centuries by land measurements (Beck). CO2 is local and lumpy and heavier than air doesn’t travel well, it may get caught up in some wind systems for a while – this is what AIRS found.
And AIRS still hasn’t released its upper and lower troposphere data, afaik.
We need to know to what extrent air borne aerosols and particles are a net positive or a net negative.
It may be that the current levels of black soot have solved the global warming problem (whether as a consequence of blocking solar irradiance and/or by seeding cloud formation). After all, there has been all but no rise in temperatures since the late 1990s.
May be we should change tack in tackling the perceived threat of global warming. May be we should simply insist upon China and India etc carrying out only minimal restrictions on the emissions of such particles allowing them to pollute in a controlled fashion which pollution is just sufficient to offset any temperature rise that would otherwise be generated by GHGs. This would be absolutely wonderful since there would be no need for extra taxes and no need for the developed nations to do anything. We can allow the developing nations to control and limit global warming. A win win situation for everyone, since the developing nations will be permitted to develop and the developed nations will not need to bankrupt themselve trying to address the perceived threat of CAGW..
Unfortunately, there is a danger with this approach, namely we do not know how the atmosphere works and we do not know the extent of any warming that has truly taken place, the reason for this and what if any role is played by CO2 (one should not forget the theory that when CO2 levels increase natural water vapour decreases thereby keeping a constant GHG balance). It may be that the aerosols and particulates measured have had no net cooling effect and there are other natural factors at play. Nonetheless it is worth a thought, although the green activists would not like to see such a pragmatic solution to the world ills, but then again, they are not truly interested in simply limiting global warming, they have other ideological concerns.
Neato!
A bunch of aviation crazies managed to promote a G5 for a hundred and fifty hours flying time and somebody else was paying. Well done!
Confusing what CO2 we produce with the annual total is foggy the picture. We only produce 3-4% of this annual total with the rest from natural producers so the scrabble to reduce our production will not change anything.
While searching for a reference for the number of people who use open fires (answer 3 billion) I came across this gem.
The IPCC has classified animal dung burnt as a fuel as renewable energy.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/05/11/ipcc-half-of-renewable-energy-is-wood-charcoal-and-animal-dung/
Black carbon particles. What other sort of carbon particles did they expect to find? Diamond dust?
I predicted this years ago.
You tax Western industry out of the market, with all kinds of environmental and health and safety demands. So industry relocates to China – who does not give a damn about environmentalism – and voila, you have just trebled world emissions of Co2 and soot particulates.
This is what the campaigns of Al Gore and his ilk have achieved – and increase in all kinds of emissions, from Co2 to heavy metals. Oh, and an increase in worker deaths too. China manages to kill some 2 – 4,000 coal miners a year. You know that Chinese toys like to use the colour red on their packaging? That’s not ink, that the blood of Chinese coal miners….
.
I analyzed data for the IMPROVE federally-funded system of remote aerosol measurement stations at the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University, between late 1991 and mid-1994. Although the principal investigator(s) had already speculated that the elemental carbon (EC, also “black” because it is highly absorbing of light) in those remote sites (at federally-protected sites, like national parks) was being under-measured by 50%, my boss didn’t like it when I researched it on my own, confirmed it and demonstrated where the measurement errors lay (half of the EC was being mis-identified as organic carbon by the thermal process then used). I went further, and indicated most of the EC was due to incomplete combustion of diesel fuel, and that it was likely to be a major nucleation species for aerosol sulfate particles (between 25 and 67% of them). This did not sit well with my superiors when I tried to publish my findings, which ran counter to the line they were taking, I believe in league with the EPA, that the proper villains for aerosol “pollution” were power plants and forest fires. They went after power plants, and some of us were embarrassed that they ignored the fact that the highest pollution was measured during intervals when the supposedly offending power plant had been turned off; that was one of the early indications I had that there was a strong political pressure behind the science, directing it where it wanted the science to go. In the end, this was spectacularly confirmed for me, when I submitted my articles for publication against the wishes of my immediate superior, and was summarily marched down to the Institute director’s office and notified my position was being terminated, due to “budget cuts”. In my last months there, they hired two other people, at least one under the same funding as me, so I knew very well the whole process was a lie, and they were just punishing me for daring to publish against my boss’s (and perhaps his political bosses’) wishes. I got published after a two-year fight (Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 30-1, Jan. 1996). So a deleterious political intrusion, particularly by the EPA, into science became known to me back then, in the early ’90s. So also did a widespread incompetence among the leading lights in the field of atmospheric aerosols and visibility. Because of losing that position, I later found myself in a position to develop my own research program into the objective origin of the very popular “ancient mysteries”, with results that have led me right back to an understanding of a real crisis of incompetence across all the physical sciences, particularly the earth and life sciences (now dominated by the undirected evolution paradigm, which I have shown to be amazingly, definitively false). I don’t expect most readers here to believe this, of course; but I resolved to be open in communicating my epochal scientific findings (and also to try to make a good living, which has so far not worked out) long ago, all the consensuses to the contrary be damned, so to speak. Truthseeker, thank you for mentioning and linking to my Venus/Earth comparison earlier.