I wonder what sort of reactions will occur when the CO2 police come knocking on individual doors saying “you need to turn off your heater, you are killing the planet”? A video follows.
From Arizona State University:
Study maps greenhouse gas emissions to building, street level for US cities
Project to help overcome barriers to an international climate change treaty
TEMPE, Ariz. – Arizona State University researchers have developed a new software system capable of estimating greenhouse gas emissions across entire urban landscapes, all the way down to roads and individual buildings. Until now, scientists quantified carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at a much broader level.
Dubbed “Hestia” after the Greek goddess of the hearth and home, researchers presented the new system in an article published October 9 in Environmental Science and Technology. Hestia combines extensive public database “data-mining” with traffic simulation and building-by-building energy-consumption modeling. Its high-resolution maps clearly identify CO2 emission sources in a way that policy-makers can utilize and the public can understand.
“Cities have had little information with which to guide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions – and you can’t reduce what you can’t measure,” said Kevin Gurney, an associate professor in ASU’s School of Life Sciences, and senior scientist with the Global Institute of Sustainability. “With Hestia, we can provide cities with a complete, three-dimensional picture of where, when and how carbon dioxide emissions are occurring.”
The research team collected data from a wide variety of sources such as local air pollution reports, traffic counts, and tax assessor parcel information. The data is then combined within a modeling system for quantifying CO2 emissions at the level of individual buildings and street segments.
So far, scientists have applied Hestia to the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, and work is ongoing for the cities of Los Angeles, California and Phoenix, Arizona. They hope to ultimately map the CO2 emissions in all major cities across the United States, which accounts for nearly one-quarter of all global CO2 emissions. The Hestia research team believes this type of detailed emissions information can help determine what we as a society, can do locally and globally about climate change.
“As a community, we must take a leadership role in sustaining our relationship with the environment,” said ASU President Michael M. Crow. “This research, and its implications for global engagement regarding climate change, is an exciting step forward. Hestia gives us the next tool we need to help policy-makers create effective greenhouse gas legislation.”
“These results may also help overcome current barriers to the United States joining an international climate change treaty,” agreed Gurney, Hestia’s lead scientist. “Many countries are unwilling to sign a treaty when greenhouse gas emission reductions cannot be independently verified.”
According to researchers, Hestia’s increased detail and accuracy will help cities, and possibly even other nations, identify where an investment in energy and greenhouse gas savings would have the greatest impact.
“Leading in sustainability is not easy; however, as Mayor, I am committed to doing so,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said. “Undoubtedly, Hestia will be a good tool to help us make more informed decisions as leaders in Phoenix and the Valley around issues of air quality, health and a sustainable future.”
Although climate change presents society with tough challenges, Gurney believes this new system enables concrete, positive steps towards mitigating the problem.
“Hestia offers practical information we can use to identify the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions and track progress over time,” Gurney said. “Scientists have spent decades describing the seriousness of climate change. Now, we are offering practical information to help do something about it.”
Purdue Showalter Trust, Knauf Insulation, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology funded the three-year Hestia project, which involved researchers Bedrich Benes and Michael Abdul-Massih from Purdue’s University Department of Computer Graphics and Technology.
Note:
Hestia is part of a larger effort that combines information about emissions with ground and satellite-based measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. It is now part of the INFLUX experiment in Indianapolis and is expected to complement NASA’s planned December 2013 launch of the Orbital Carbon Observatory satellite, which will measure the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
ASU’s School of Life Sciences is an academic unit of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
===================================================
This type of program should be trivial. Simply input the energy consumed at a location, the source of that energy and the answer can be computed easily. Probably not more than a couple hundred lines of code. I’m sure all that wonderful graphics is completely useless since, to actually use the information, you’d want a nice report.
Somebodies making a fortune off the naivety of the funders.
malanlewis: “Oh Bogg, yet another “modeling system!””
But this time it’s Sim City.
CO2 police at my door? “Get off my lawn.” Then show them an empty chair. (Clint Eastwood fans will get both references.
Sean, the ‘ancient’ rifles (pre-1962, CCR FFL kind) are the best! The WWI and WWII Americans and Russians made them well.
Give the biggest emitters of CO2 awards for supporting the biosphere. Anything else is a violation of common sense.
“Undoubtedly, Hestia will be a good tool to help us make more informed decisions as leaders in Phoenix and the Valley around issues of air quality, health and a sustainable future.”
Undoubtedly, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is butthead. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations up 5,000 ppmv (more than 10 times the current environmental value) have absolutely nothing to do with either “air quality” or “health”. As for “sustainable future”, the biggest obstacle to it is being mortal, which is an undeniable ingredient of the human condition so far. But I do not think a Major has any authority over eternity, no matter how “informed decisions” he is helped to make.
http://hestia.project.asu.edu/uploads/Gurney.ES&T.2012.final.proof.pdf
There is a link to the paper itself – a bit over my head but I skimmed the paper and mostly understand the basics … it largely appears to be models modeling models….
That said – to be fair – I was at least somewhat impressed, in my laymans point of view, with the effort. It is part of a long term ongoing project. There seems to be at least SOME comparison between their model outputs and measured data – although there was a “calibration” mentioned.
The interesting finding was the biggest contributor by far to CO2 emissions was all the residential property. Large square footages with minimal occupancy loading and generally inferior energy efficiency compared to large commercial structures.
I certainly can see significant problems and abuses but also some possible potential benefits.
What a bunch of crap combination of little fact and lot of fiction (modeling). CO2 emissions are counted as increased becuase during winter we use more energy!
Only a matter of time before these jack-donkeys start modeling at the personal level and then watch out large people are toast — only women and children will survive. OMG
lol
First they came for the breweries…
A 1984 solution to a non problem. Have these idiots not have a proper job. Send them to Africa to help dig wells.
It’s far easier to convince the local city council or city regulators to start some sort of carbon consumption tax, or local cap-and-trade scheme, than to persuade Congress to pass a law. The local media almost certainly be 100% in favor. Proponents will be able to spend millions on such a campaign.
In the context of honorable debate, all of you that take the stand that 1) global warming doesn’t exist AND/OR 2) global warming as a destructive component for the survival of society is a hoax AND/OR 3) global warming exists but it’s no big deal and is being portrayed way out of proportion by those professing global warming AND/OR there is a conspiracy to “create” the concept of global warming, I simply ask you this: What are your credentials to back your beliefs?
A brief synopsis of your educational background and degrees, and professional experience regarding this subject would be appreciated. Ignorance works both ways. For those that might feel I’m ignorant for believing global warming exists, I request your background as evidence to counteract the possibility that you are ignorant for either believing global warming doesn’t exist or, if it exists, it’s not a serious problem.
Again, all this is asked in the spirit of honorable discussion about a current topic of significant importance..
[Duped statement/challenge already printed in another thread? Mod]
John Marshall says:
October 10, 2012 at 4:37 am
Dunno if that’s such a good idea. UNICEF got into the “lets dig em a well” game back in the 1970’s an 1980’s and managed to make Arsenic poisoning a common ailment in Bangladesh.
The Best solution is to to just lock up anyone connected to the UN before they hurt someone. They are dangerous.
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/sciam.pdf
_Jim says:
October 9, 2012 at 3:14 pm
…
I think we had an in-flight-on-launch error on a CO2 research satellite several years back.
It was “The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)”, a NASA satellite mission intended to provide global space-based observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
…
Thanks for the reference. I did a little more digging and discovered that NASA is preparing a second carbon observatory “OCO2” for launch in 2014.
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_homepage/mission_profiles/show_mission.php?id=99&mission_cat_id=19
Also I found that there is a CO2 imager called AIRS (Atomospheric InfraRed Sound) currently riding on board the NASA Aqua satellite:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
But all three of these observatories seem to be operate by detecting absorption in reflected sunlight at IR wavelengths less than 2 microns, i.e. inside the solar black body curve. This is well outside the terrestrial black body curve (4 to 40 microns). So is not using the re-emission caused by the green house effect.
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/blackbody_curve.jpg?w=500
So these satellites will observe a strong diurnal variance, virtually nothing on the dark side of the earth and max output on the sunny side at noon. Whereas the GOES Channel 3 output, which measures the Earth’s thermal GHE radiaton around 6-7 microns, shows little difference between the dark and sunny sides of the Earth.
I erred in my description of this “earth shine” in my post above:
“Dark areas in the imagery are areas which are dry and expose the ground below. The whiter regions show the heat radiated from water vapor.”
Actually, the images are inverted negatives, so the darkest regions are the “hottest” and the whiter areas are the “coldest”, with respect to emitted radiation in the 6-7 micron band. Which proves that for every NOAA image there is a simple and clear explanation, which is also wrong.
But I think my claim is still valid (that you can “see” the green house effect in the GEOS water vapor images). But perhaps it’s not as “simple and clear” as before:
1) output independent of “sunny” or “dark” side of Earth (to see this go to http://www.goes.noaa.gov/ and lookat “Visible” [changes between sunny and dark] and “Water Vapor” [no change between day and night]
2) the whiter regions are colder therefore represent absorption of IR radiated from surface [black areas]. Since energy must be conserved, it follows that the absorbed radiation was converted into higher kinetic energy of surface and air molecules, i.e. higher temperatures
So I’m still curious what a “CO2 Vapor” image, filtered at 4microns, would look like. I’m guessing that it would not be anywhere as dramatic, GHE-wise, as the GEOS water vapor imagery. Because CO2 is only present in traces and fewer absorbing wavelengths.
The available AIRS data seems to back my claim. Look at this AIRS “CO2 Movie” of “Global Distribution and increase of CO2 in the mid-troposphere”
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/
Look carefully for any large sources or sinks of CO2. The most striking occurred in Feb-Mar 2009 in China. (What caused that!?) Also a lot of sourcing in the northern polar regions. But hardly any sourcing visible from the U.S.
Surely this is a total; fabrication as it clearly says they are estimating from indirect measurements of other factors. They are presenting as factual measured information indirectly obtained results that are at best weak reliability estimates with only a dubious probability of being right. They are tracking nothing whatever.
What has happened to science and scientists.
With funding from the Purdue Showalter Trust , Knauf Insulation and most recently from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (in the context of the INFLUX experiment), a case study of Indianapolis (and surrounding counties) has been accomplished. The final visualization, currently under construction (example in the figure below), will aim towards a dynamic environment where users can zoom and pan over portions of the city, imaging sub portions of carbon dioxide emissions by sector, sub-sector and area. The Indianapolis case forms the basis of our recent publication and outreach video .
golfnewsmag says:
October 10, 2012 at 7:49 am
In the context of honorable debate, all of you that take the stand that 1) global warming doesn’t exist AND/OR 2) global warming as a destructive component for the survival of society is a hoax AND/OR 3) global warming exists but it’s no big deal and is being portrayed way out of proportion by those professing global warming AND/OR there is a conspiracy to “create” the concept of global warming, I simply ask you this: What are your credentials to back your beliefs?
Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, I think they know and understand physics well. Listen to Ivar here:
is climate change pseudo-science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/04/nobel-laureate-ivar-gieavaer-asks-is-climate-change-pseudoscience/
http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/#/Video?id=1410
Here please read careful through the comments you will see that most people have educational knowledge in engineering, geology, chemistry, climate, astronomy or meteorology and many more. Here people do not talk beliefs but science and I trust when I say that all trust the scientific method.
So stop posting platitudes of no value. Discuss on the blog subject and try to defend global warming if you have knowledge of the subject or read and learn. As nonsense posting troll you will not convince anybody of anything except your incapacity to talk.
“””””……golfnewsmag says:
October 10, 2012 at 7:49 am
In the context of honorable debate, all of you that take the stand that 1) global warming doesn’t exist AND/OR 2) global warming as a destructive component for the survival of society is a hoax AND/OR 3) global warming exists but it’s no big deal and is being portrayed way out of proportion by those professing global warming AND/OR there is a conspiracy to “create” the concept of global warming, I simply ask you this: What are your credentials to back your beliefs?…..”””””
So golfnewsmag, let me reverse the query; other than writing about the second most wasteful use of valuable real estate; not to mention a completely unwarranted waste of precious water resources, what are YOUR credentials for commenting on “global warming”.
Other than 55 years, as a practical working Physicist, I’m a bit of a novice myself; which is why I come here, to learn from those who know much more about it, than I do.
So what qualifies you to be so critical of “all of you” ?
“””””…..golfnewsmag says:
October 9, 2012 at 12:09 pm
So, folks, are you saying either there is no global warming or there is, but it’s not a serious issue? There are some things as a society we have to tackle as a society; issues so pervasive individuals alone can not solve them. Global warming, whether you like it or not, seems to be one of them. I am not about to believe I am smarter that hundreds of the finest scientists in the world that say global warming exists, it is alarming and they give factual, physics to back it up……..””””
Do you have numbers to show what percentage (like 97% maybe) of these “finest Scientists in the world” actually do have any sort of degree in Physics ? And if they truly are “the finest scientists in the world”, why is it that so few of them are actually able to find permanent jobs in productive enterprises, using their scientific training; and seem doomed (according to Physics Today) to spend their careers as permanent post-doc fellows living off taxpayer grants.
“Global warming” is what is keeping many of them in groceries.
SETH BORENSTEIN “Global warming means more Antarctic ice”
“Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year — both related to human activity — are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say.”
Many experts agree. Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado adds: “It sounds counterintuitive, but the Antarctic is part of the warming as well.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZjexMwx4JtHEl19ni3lJCOQHx2Q?docId=71ccc50ef7674d1ea661a3d0b51fb757
“Look carefully for any large sources or sinks of CO2. The most striking occurred in Feb-Mar 2009 in China. (What caused that!?) Also a lot of sourcing in the northern polar regions. But hardly any sourcing visible from the U.S.”
The AIRS Global Monthly does provide for some very interesting questions… specifically the polar regions.
Monthly CO2 Mole Fraction averaged by Latitude.
http://i48.tinypic.com/audopv.png
Dear Moderators,
Comment from “gold account” is auto-spam.
[Thanks. I suspected as much, but the comment seemed to be more well thought out than the usual spambot comment. So I deleted his URL before approving it. Since someone responded to it I’ll leave it. But future ‘gold account’ comments will not be approved. — mod.]
golfnewsmag says:
October 10, 2012 at 7:49 am
Oops–you left out the only one that’s important: 5) catastrophic global warming is caused by humans (hence the “anthropogenic” component of CAGW).
Were you to really be an educated person, golf, you’d see your silly options for what they are and not bother us with trivial pursuit.
Oh, and it’s always polite to state your own credentials when coming here trolling for responses–otherwise nobody will give you the time of day.
So on that note: What are YOUR credentials to back not only your beliefs, but verifiable facts regarding point #5 above?
If nothing is forthcoming, we’ll just roll our eyes at your sophomoric attempt and wish you a good day and good riddance.
Found in “golfnewsmag” on October 10, 2012 at 7:49 am:
Hey, when you’re saving the world from evil Big Oil-funded global warming deniers, mild thread spamming is among the least things you can do. Mahatma Gandhi would be proud.
Look at the bright side. WUWT is worthy of “civil disobedience” against it, therefore WUWT is part of “The Establishment”. The skeptics are in charge!
golfnewsmag,
Look here. What did you learn? Maybe you learned that the planet has been warming along the same long term trend line since the Little Ice Age.
Maybe you also learned that the warming trend has not accelerated. It is the same, whether CO2 is low or high.
Then look here. You could learn that the warming trend repeats, whether CO2 is low or high. Here is another example showing that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. Each rising temperature episode is the same, whether CO2 is low or high.
Then look here. Did you see that temperatures have stopped warming? What does that tell you?
What those charts tell rational folks is that the “carbon” scare is baseless. Maybe CO2 has a minuscule effect, but there is no empirical data to provide evidence of AGW. Can you live with that? Or have you drunk so much alarmist Kool Aid that you no longer need scientific evidence. For some folks, their Belief is sufficient. Does that describe you? Or do you now wonder why global warming is not accelerating, despite much higher CO2 levels.
The rising temperature trend has been the same for 3+ centuries. How do you explain the Belief in “carbon” as the primary cause of global warming? Instead of your Appeals to Authority, maybe you need to re-think your AGW Belief.
golfnewsmag says:
In the context of honorable debate, … I simply ask you this: What are your credentials to back your beliefs?
You cannot advance an honorable debate by asking dishonorable questions. This is a science blog. Scientific beliefs are not backed by “credentials”. Scientific beliefs are backed by facts and reasoning.
For those that might feel I’m ignorant for believing global warming exists, I request your background as evidence to counteract the possibility that you are ignorant for either believing global warming doesn’t exist or, if it exists, it’s not a serious problem.
You are ignorant of far more than than simply the facts about global warming. You are ignorant of the fundamentals of scientific reasoning. You are not equipped for honorable debate on matters of science.