From the University of Utah, a way to keep tabs on Kyoto, except there isn’t any new treaties expected to be signed.
Measuring CO2 to fight global warming
University of Utah and Harvard scientists develop way to enforce future greenhouse gas treaty

SALT LAKE CITY, May 14, 2012 – If the world’s nations ever sign a treaty to limit emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide gas, there may be a way to help verify compliance: a new method developed by scientists from the University of Utah and Harvard.
Using measurements from only three carbon-dioxide (CO2) monitoring stations in the Salt Lake Valley, the method could reliably detect changes in CO2 emissions of 15 percent or more, the researchers report in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for the week of May 14, 2012.
The method is a proof-of-concept first step even though it is less precise than the 5 percent accuracy recommended by a National Academy of Sciences panel in 2010. The study’s authors say satellite monitoring of carbon dioxide levels ultimately may be more accurate than the ground-based method developed in the new study.
“The primary motivation for the study was to take high-quality data of atmospheric CO2 in an urban region and ask if you could predict the emissions patterns based on CO2 concentrations in the air,” says study coauthor Jim Ehleringer, a distinguished professor of biology at the University of Utah.
“The ultimate use is to verify CO2 emissions in the event that the world’s nations agree to a treaty to limit such emissions,” he says. “The idea is can you combine concentration information – CO2 in the air near the ground – and weather patterns, which is wind blowing, and mathematically determine emissions based on that information.”
Ehleringer did the study with four Massachusetts atmospheric scientists: Kathryn McKain and Steven Wofsy of Harvard University, and Thomas Nehrkorn and Janusz Eluszkiewicz of Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
While the method can detect changes of 15 percent or more in CO2 levels, determining absolute levels is tricky and depends on certain assumptions, but it can be done, Ehleringer says.
“The model [new method] predicts more CO2 emissions than we see,” based on a federal government survey that previously estimated carbon dioxide emissions based on interviews with gas- and coal-burning utilities and sellers of fuel and natural gas, he says. “That shouldn’t surprise you. People are underreporting.”
Estimating CO2 Emissions
Ehleringer began monitoring carbon dioxide levels in the Salt Lake Valley in 2002 as part of a National Science Foundation-funded study of the urban airshed. The monitoring network measures CO2 from six sites across the Salt Lake Valley and a seventh well above the valley at Snowbird.
“It is the most extensive publicly available and online data set of CO2 concentrations in an urban area in the world,” he says (co2.utah.edu).
The new study created a computer simulation of CO2 emissions in the Salt Lake Valley using three sources of information:
- CO2 measurements from three sites – the University of Utah, downtown Salt Lake City and Murray, Utah, about halfway south down the valley’s length.
- Data from weather stations in the valley, crunched through weather forecasting software used to predict wind and air circulation.
- Satellite data showing what parts of the valley are covered by homes, other buildings, trees, agriculture and so on.
The emissions estimates from the simulation were compared with the results of the government survey that estimates CO2 emissions.
“You come up with estimates for emissions that are within 15 percent or better of the actual emissions for the region,” Ehleringer says.
Even though that is not as precise as desired by the National Academy of Sciences, “it is a very powerful first step,” he adds. “However we would like to be within 5 percent for treaty verification purposes.”
Because urban regions are major sources of CO2, “a large fraction of a country’s emissions likely emanate from such regions, and results from several representative cities over time could provide strong tests of claimed emission reductions at national or regional scales,” the researchers write.
The simulation showed how ground-level CO2 concentrations increased overnight when air was calm, and then decreased in the morning as sunlight mixed the air and plants consumed CO2 due to photosynthesis. Sometimes the simulation failed to catch the exact time this mixing occurred.
That is part of the reason the researchers argue satellite measurements through a mile-thick vertical column of air may better estimate CO2 concentrations and thus emissions by being less sensitive to ground-level variations close and far from emissions sources like smokestacks or intersections with idling vehicles.
Several satellites around the world now make limited CO2 measurements. But the researchers write that “no presently planned satellite has the necessary orbit or targeting capability” for the desired urban CO2 measurements.
Several previous studies looked at CO2 levels in various cities, but none at the full urban scale or with accuracy near what is required for treaty verification, the researchers say. The only study that accurately measured an urban area’s CO2 emissions over time – in Heidelberg, Germany – did so with a method too expensive for routine use.
Ehleringer’s part of the research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The study says his coauthors were funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and – without specifics – “by the U.S. intelligence community,” which would be involved in treaty verification.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Idiotic, if you ask me. All you need to do is keep track of fuel consumption and you can calculate CO2 emission. Keep track of all oil, coal, gas, and refined petroleum fuel consumed in the state and you know exactly how much CO2 was produced.
“The model [new method] predicts more CO2 emissions than we see,”
The UN will love it.
Absolutely NO NEED to limit emissions of a benign, eco-friendly gas.
The emissions estimates from the simulation were compared with the results of the government survey that estimates CO2 emissions.
“You come up with estimates for emissions that are within 15 percent or better of the actual emissions for the region,” Ehleringer says.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Outright hooey. They compared the emissions ESTIMATES from the simulation with the emissions ESTIMATES from the survey, Since both are estimates the statement that either is within 15% of actual emissions is bogus. Not have measured actual emissions wih any degree of accuracy, they’re validating one WAG by comparing it to another WAG.
But let’s not get derailed into the “how to measure it” argument. GISS, Hadcrut, USA and RSS all show flat or cooling temps for the last 15 years. Put that on a billboard and try and get someone to exaplain who it indicates global warming. Since there is no warming being measured, in fact the onset of a cooling trend seems to be appearing, CO2 clearly doens’t drive the climate and there is zero vaule in either measuring or controlling emissions.
….“by the U.S. intelligence community,…….”
I’d be worried if I were a US citizen.
What could possibly go wrong.
(Images of blockades around gas stations, people trudging through long lines carrying gas cans, delivery trucks stopped at regional borders….)
“The model [new method] predicts more CO2 emissions than we see,” based on a federal government survey that previously estimated carbon dioxide emissions based on interviews with gas- and coal-burning utilities and sellers of fuel and natural gas”
So the new model is within about 50% of the previous guess, which was based on interviewing some folk who have a vested interest. And either of these are supposed to be science? What happened to empirical measurement?
Just what we need. Another model based on more assumptions.
Why pretend at all to measure, when it’s easier just to deem?
CO2 emissions are greater than reported. So more than 50% is disappearing into the sink, that big black hole that means the atmospheric CO2 proportion is rising at only half the amount of anthropogenic output. The size of the sink is incorporated into the models for their projections. The sink is bigger. What amendments to the models will be required to take this into account?
JF
(I’m sure there’ll be no problem, of course. A fiddle here, a fudge there and voila! It’s worse than we thought.)
Big Brother has reinforced his footprint.
Climate science has evolved to being anti-human and anti-democratic. Climate scientists are eroding the freedoms our ancestors fought for. A new trend is emerging, there are too many climate/enviro scientists in the world today, all competing for the same funding. As a result we see thousands of bogus & artificial problems being created, that are both costly and prohibitive to citizens at large. The more fanatical the solution, the more likely the scientist gets the funding. Science used to be for the betterment of humankind, nowadays, now it is more likely to be used to abuse hard fought for freedoms.
Good that there will never be an international treaty for CO2.
Don’t these people realize the tide is turning? You’d think people would be jumping OFF the bandwagon, not on. How thick are these idiots?
Oh great.
I used to take air samples for EPA compliance at the chemical plant I worked at. It was a royal pain in the rear. The real hidden I gottcha is the government lackey who gets a bonus for every non-compliance and he finds CONTROLS the testing.
“Mad Sheep” is just ONE of several similar horror stories. Many never make it into print.
“USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” ~ Linda Faillace: Mad Sheep
timeline: http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/mad_sheep:paperback/timeline
The FOIA has finally come through showing the sheep that were destroyed were clean: http://foiamadsheepmadrivervalley.blogspot.com/
“Sometimes the simulation failed to catch the exact time this mixing occurred.”
Never mind. Today the exact time is 06h, 32m, 21s, 3ms, 9µs and 5ns :o)
If you look at the yearly CO2 trend in Salt Lake City it’s pretty obvious that the biggest source of excess CO2 emissions comes from the combustion of natural gas during winter for residential heating. The background CO2 level is about 390ppm in summer and then slowly ramps up in the Fall before peaking at around 480ppm in January.
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=1&id=0&img=12
I really hope the Mormons are not getting involved in this CO2 nonsense.
As I said elsewhere already: L Michael Hohmann says:
May 7, 2012 at 12:19 am
“I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html.
The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended, in order to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of their monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole discipline, if not all, of science into disrepute in the process. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.”
That’s not to belittle the effort by thousands of scientists fighting for the truth in climate research, but I dismay over the practical effect of diverting all this brain power in a direction not at all relevant to the IPCC’s actual and declared political and financial intentions – or more importantly: away from the actual work that needs doing.
All IMHO, of course. My musings for what they may be worth on my various blogsite entries, and at http://www.lmhdesign.co.uk/sustainability.php and the Planet page on that website.
gud 1.:)
davidmhoffer says:
May 15, 2012 at 1:02 am
CO2 clearly doens’t drive the climate and there is zero vaule in either measuring or controlling emissions.
The only value they’re looking for is in the contents of your wallet — they want to redistribute it into theirs.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
– Albert Einstein
Brilliant! What a tour de farce! I hope they intend to continue their scientific endeavours with an attack on the problem of animal methane emissions. Perhaps they could combine that with meteorological studies to give us the true value of a fart in a thunderstorm.
“The model [new method] predicts more CO2 emissions than we see,” based on a federal government survey that previously estimated carbon dioxide emissions based on interviews with gas- and coal-burning utilities and sellers of fuel and natural gas, he says. “That shouldn’t surprise you. People are underreporting.”
Translation: “That’s how we explain the dichotomy between what we see and what the model predicts.”
This is of great use to the military. Tracking troops and the like in far off countries. RADAR, Visible, Thermal and now CO2 emissions.
Of course, selectivity is imperfect. Come WW3 the CIA will order a strike on a Chinese column and wipe out the world’s wildebeasts.
A solution in search of a problem. And one that probably doesn’t work as well as advertised either.