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.
I see the sentiment of the article and several comments indicating that there is a fear of regulation of emissions. Some comments float ideas that the field of climate climate science is anti-democratic, anti-human, or socialist.
Why is there such a distinct fear? What evidence is there that a vast group of people would make up a need for emissions reduction in order to gain social control or fascist-like power?
This does not separate emissions from fossil fuel and emissions from renewable fuels, so this is completely useless as a tool for verification no matter how accurate they can make it.
‘“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.”’
With no current limits wouldn’t the producers of CO2 emissions have an incentive to OVER report their emissions? So that if limits are imposed they will be starting from an inflated position.
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…
So could a philodendron.
Boy they sure are making this complicated. Why not just take one measurement at the airport and call it good; works for temperature.
/sarc
Cometh the tax funded scam, cometh the snake oil salesman.
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
One can easily see how chemical methods of measuring CO2 in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in values up to and over 500ppm.
davidmhoffer says: May 15, 2012 at 1:02 am
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.
==================
Have you not heard of a noisy signal?!
The co2 effect is burried in noise but it is there (unless you subscribe to the gravity effect) as CO2 increases so will temperature, so will water vapour content. It may not be visible in the noise but it is there forever increasing the temperature. If you drip water slowly into a containerer and if the evaporation (==radiation to space) is less than the drip will the container eventually overflow?
But if the volume of the container is continually changed by compressing the sides elastically the height of water will move up and down but the average volume remains the same so over enough time the the height will still eventually overflow the container – the input is still greater than the output – it has not changed.
here are 2 plots showing that using all cycles (the temperature is controlled by cycles only)
and one that shows an underlying trend. Even the underlying trend shows stable temperature until 2023 then it gets back on track at the next upswing of the major 60 year cycle.
To ignore the dripping tap is not wise!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XOLDhjAW1Y8/Te6-7flDegI/AAAAAAAAAHo/t1W5AbM0jkg/s1600/high+level.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7xve50ZtMJ4/Te69400MiqI/AAAAAAAAAHk/t2xYavRh9_o/s1600/higher+level+trend.jpg
Here’s one showing what happens if you extend the same set of trend plus cycles +2C by 2090!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dM4tknLxpyk/TeMKAqU6bBI/AAAAAAAAAGw/BIe8xnPnggM/s1600/Image5.jpg
Anything to keep the funding stream alive.
It’s good to know that our scientists are developing useless tools for useless future agenda goals.
“computer simulation of CO2 emissions ” OUCH! Science just left the building. Once they have one of these, they start putting less or no emphasis on the facts or the input. Now, when the EPA wants to target a company, they can just have the simulation generate the “evidence” of criminal activity. No need for a trial (where the evidence would not hold up), just march the perps to the nearest wall and a last ciggy—after all “We’re the government and we’re here to oppress you.”
@jjthoms
“Here’s one showing what happens if you extend the same set of trend plus cycles +2C by 2090!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dM4tknLxpyk/TeMKAqU6bBI/AAAAAAAAAGw/BIe8xnPnggM/s1600/Image5.jpg”
So the temperature increase due to CO2 is going to be exponential even though it is well known that the effects of CO2 are logarithmic?
When it is proven that CO2 has little effect on the worlds temperature, the experts will be on the news saying EVERYONE thought that it was the culprit. Experts always include everyone when they are wrong.
Sorry I don’t know where to put an off-topic post, but I thought Anthony Watts would be interested in this (also cross-posted to fakegate.org).
You may be interested to know that you appear in the latest (Vol 17 No.2 ) of Skeptic Magazine. Article by Donald R. Prothero pp14-22
The article cites Gleick’s “leak” including the fake document (which is apparently taken as being real).
Here is the quote:
In February 2012, leaks of documents from the denialist Heartland Institute revealed that they were trying to influence science education, suppress the work of scientists, and paid off many prominent climate deniers, such as Anthony Watts, all in an effort to circumvent the scientific consensus by doing an “end run” of PR and political pressure. Other leaks have shown 9 out 10 major climate deniers are paid by ExxonMobil[30].
Footnote 30 reads:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/in-heartland-institute-leak-a-plan-to-discredit-climate-teaching.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc=%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
“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.”
This fails a simple logic test. If we predict more CO2 than we are getting, it would be because we are OVERREPORTING, not UNDERREPORTING.
Thanks to plants, not all CO2 produced goes directly into the atmosphere in a day. Some of that extra CO2 is converted to oxygen and to plant material thanks to photosynthesis.
I kind of LIKE the idea of studying CO2 changes over a day all over the world, rather than assume a pristine Mauna Loa. It was earlier argued that Mauna Loa gave more rreliable results than those around farms or cities, because there was less diurnal fluctuation due to plants.
After giving this a little thought, I realize that the whole world balance of CO2 and O2 is completey regulated by plants- a natural background balance excluding daily plant dynamics is an absurdity.
otter17 says:
May 15, 2012 at 3:47 am
I see the sentiment of the article and several comments indicating that there is a fear of regulation of emissions. Some comments float ideas that the field of climate climate science is anti-democratic, anti-human, or socialist.
Why is there such a distinct fear? What evidence is there that a vast group of people would make up a need for emissions reduction in order to gain social control or fascist-like power?
Otter17 – I suggest you look up Agenda 21 on the UN site. Or for a primer you could go to http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/
There’s another side to this story, and it’s happening at universities across the land. A spin-off company started by research faculty using research grants and university facilities for the foundation, resulting in wonderful profits for professors in addition to both their regular salaries and profits from research grants. I know, I watched several of them start up.
http://innovationutah.com/carbonengineering.html
Notice at the bottom… CB BioEnergy? A closer look: http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1tbz4/2011AnnualReportTech/resources/27.htm
They use taxpayer funded university facilities for the research, taxpayer funded research grants to develop the technology, … and don’t forget the complimentary grad student indentured servant/low cost labor…. then pay a pittance percentage of the patents back to the U. But wait, there’s more. They get to bask in the limelight while driving their wheelbarrows of money to the bank.
The universities love the income and the great notoriety (also spelled PR), so it’s no wonder they’re so defensive and protective. Just like they protect their athletes and coaches.
Maybe the fuel-based model does not take into account urban and suburban concentration of human breath. In rural areas, everybody drives. Even kids. It probably nears 100%. In urban areas, that percentage is likely to fall. Therefore, emission models should include human breath as part of the emission calculation.
As soon as that has been accomplished, and my hope is that we skeptics will catch that change in the model, people will begin to realize that population control, Chinese style, will follow.
We must, we must, vote these people out and clean up all the institutions they have flocked to. That includes the Dept of Ag, our National Forest Service, NOAA, NASA, and Ivory Towers everywhere. It’s time we got back to the business of manufacturing quality goods (like pencils that work! Geesh!), and providing the kind of jobs needed to buy the quality goods we make.
I wonder how so many ‘smart’ people get involved in so many truly stupid and worthless projects.
I am now well over my ‘Three score years and ten’, so I won’t have to witness the rest of you smashing up all those bird choppers, and watching the army of labourers, polishing the dust off of those desert panels. What a terrible legacy my generation is leaving yours, I genuinely feel deeply ashamed of what we have done.
jjthoms says:
May 15, 2012 at 5:11 am
…as CO2 increases so will temperature, so will water vapour content. It may not be visible in the noise but it is there forever increasing the temperature.
…as temperature increases so will CO2. It may not be visible to the naked eye but it is there forever either increasing or decreasing, generally following the temperature at an 800-year lag rate.
There. Fixed it for ya.
When our elected politicians think we need an international organization to manage and police the affairs of the US then it is time to change elected politicians to ones that believe we are a sovereign nation capable of governing under the US Constitution.
And that would be elected politicians that would make no treaty that would violate any part of the constitution or infringe on the rights of US citizens.
jjthoms says:nonsense at May 15, 2012 at 5:11 am
CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales; there has been no net global warming for 10-15 years; probable global cooling soon; finally, the system is not static, it is dynamic, so your rmodel fails.
Alan D McIntire says:part of the story – oceans matter too – at May 15, 2012 at 6:01 am
Read Veizer GSA Today 2005
Murry Salby video 2011
wayne Job says:
May 15, 2012 at 2:50 am
Naaah… We’re watching the desert “blossom as the rose” (and now we know why):
“The wilderness and the wasteland shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose”–Isaiah 35:1
I’m deeply embarrassed for my alma mater.
I think this study gives new impetus for skeptics to support wind turbines. What we can do is use those gargantuan eyesores, run ’em in reverse, and blow that CO2 away from these measuring stations and thus be in compliance. However it might be beneficial not to interfere with any measurements taken in proximity of the White House, Air Force One (no more vacations Michele), Maurice Strong’s penthouse in Beijing, and a certain mansion in Tennessee.
It’s a funny old world. Someone who is so mentally challenged as to believe that one can string together a number of estimates, add them together, and come up with an accurate answer is employed by the public purse. That is good. It is humane. Where is the man who would see him starve for want of human empathy. What is more difficult to grasp is that there are so many out there, so very many, who will see meaning in his numbers and extrapolate to the point of catastrophe, and dictate to us, his tolerant benefactors, trials and tribulations that we should go through to save us from spurious predictions. It’s a funny old world.
Just another clear example that the skeptical climate voice is being totally ignored. The fact that there is no international treaty to enforce, is also ignored. Finally the fact that climate empirical evidence shows no increase in GMT for 15 yrs – isn’t even on their radar. Policy and actions seem to based only on some idealist’s opinion. How depressing and foolish for us all! GK
Let me know where they are, my friends and I will make it a point to go and breath on them regurally.