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 think that they need credit for a decent attempt at data collection at http://co2.utah.edu/
The SLC valley is similar in topography to Canberra airport valley where inversion at night in winter occurs, and the ground temperature plummets. Look at Rose Park daily CO2 and CO2 swings from 395ppm at 4pm to 480 at midnight. This is telling me that the valley is pooling still air at night, and, far from mixing, CO2 is separating out. So rather than Brownian motion mixing this gas, it will separate out given the right conditions. This is an important finding.
We should not get steamed up at an attempt at good data collection, it is the very essence of good science and that has been the reoccurring message here at WUWT. Good data can be looked at in many ways, not always to benefit the original reason for collection.
Daniel H says:
May 15, 2012 at 2:33 am
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.
Wouldn’t decomposition be a more likely reason. All those leaves that fall off the trees (and other bio-stuff) give up their carbon and the level increases.
Jay
May 15, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“University of Utah biologist Jim Ehleringer”
Sorry, he is not a climate scientist (or even a chemist), so how can he be qualified to work on measuring CO2?
/
####
Then he ought to know that plants release CO2 at night. Guess he’s not much of a biologist either.
DesertYote says:
May 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Then he ought to know that plants release CO2 at night. Guess he’s not much of a biologist either.
Which is probably why he’s jumping on the AGW gravy train.
What??? Am I to understand, according to Professor Ehleringer, that the EPA’s CO2 emission estimates for the State of Utah are produced by “interviews” with utilities” See where he states:
“previously estimated carbon dioxide emissions [are] based on interviews with gas- and coal-burning utilities…”
(Sarcasm on) Gee… all this time I was under the impression that the EPA CO2 emissions data is collected by CEMS instrumentation installed on each electrical generating unit using data collection standards established by EPA (Sarcasm off). Use of the instrumentation is required under the Clean Air Act and is part of each utilities emission permit.
The EPA emissions data in use is certainly not the result of “interviews” and his suggestion that utilities are “… are underreporting” is both factually inaccurate and morally repugnant.
Kforestcat
Kforestcat says:
May 16, 2012 at 11:05 am
The EPA emissions data in use is certainly not the result of “interviews” and his suggestion that utilities are “… are underreporting” is both factually inaccurate and morally repugnant.
So, his rationale for starting this project is based on — lies.
Anybody else starting to discern a pattern in this field?
Kforestcat says: @ur momisugly May 16, 2012 at 11:05 am
The EPA emissions data in use is certainly not the result of “interviews” and his suggestion that utilities are “… are underreporting” is both factually inaccurate and morally repugnant.
——————————–
Bill Tuttle says: @ur momisugly May 16, 2012 at 11:52 am
So, his rationale for starting this project is based on — lies.
Anybody else starting to discern a pattern in this field?
_____________________________
Follow the money and you find lots of lies covering up the transfer of tax money to private pockets?
Bill Tuttle says: @ur momisugly May 16, 2012 at 11:52 am
Bill per your statement:
“So, his rationale for starting this project is based on — lies.”
Not only is the rational based on lies; the lies are easily proven. Simply go to the EPA “Air Markets Program Data” site here:
http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/
Press “Start” under “Create a Query”
Under programs Select the “Acid Air Program”
Under emission below programs select “Emissions” and “Unit Level”
Press “Next Step”
Pick the “time frame” you want (hourly, daily, monthly, quarterly, or annual – I’d suggest “annual” to limit the query time).
Under “Criteria” Pick the” State”, then select “Utah” & press the right arrow.
Press “Next Step”
Under “Variables” add “Unit Type” and “Fuel Type – Primary” to identify if the unit is a coal or gas unit.
Press “Next Step” again and… all the data you want will be right in front of you. (Hit the “Download Selected” button to get an Excel version of the data.)
Please Note: While the data is for the “Acid Rain Program”, CO2 emissions are included in the data set. By recollection, the EPA began collecting Utah’s CO2 data around 2005.
Regards,
Kforestcat
Billy Liar says: May 15, 2012 at 11:47 am
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in SLC:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
Thank you Billy.
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule. In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.
These observations, if correct, suggest that human combustion of fossil fuels is NOT the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
These observations are consistent with my 2008 paper, which notes that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time sales.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
In what has become “mainstream climate science”, there are many inconsistencies that have been resolved by data fabrication and contortions of logic.
There appears to be a much simpler explanation. Temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse.
___________
Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.