The previous mission failed to make orbit, crashed into ocean.
A Delta II rocket blazed off the launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California early Wednesday morning to begin a landmark mission to survey carbon dioxide gas in Earth’s atmosphere.
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2, is expected to provide insight into how the planet adjusts to the increased production of carbon dioxide from a vantage point in orbit that will allow it to take readings on a scale never achieved before.
While ground stations have been monitoring carbon dioxide concentrations, OCO-2 will be the first spacecraft to conduct a global-scale reading over several seasons. The spacecraft is expected to produce detailed readings to provide regional sources of carbon dioxide as well as sinks for the greenhouse gas.
“There’s quite a lot of urgency to see what we can get from a satellite like OCO-2,” said David Crisp, the science team lead for the mission.
The spacecraft flew into orbit aboard a United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The July 2 liftoff came at 5:56 a.m. Eastern time, 2:56 Pacific time. The hexagonal spacecraft is about 6 feet long and 3 feet in diameter and weighs 985 pounds. The Delta II first stage’s single liquid-fueled engine ignited moments before the three solid-fueled boosters roared to life to catapult the rocket and spacecraft off the pad toward space.
The launch was from the west coast so the spacecraft could enter a polar orbit of the Earth, a flight path that will see it cross over the Arctic and Antarctic regions during each revolution and get a complete picture of the Earth. It will fly about 438 miles above the planet’s surface to take its readings.
“The only way to accomplish a polar orbit from U.S. soil is to launch from Vandenberg,” said Tim Dunn, NASA’s launch manager for the flight.
The mission is the first of its kind in the agency’s extensive history of Earth-observing spacecraft. The spacecraft was launched to replace the first OCO that did not make it into orbit due to an anomaly in February 2009. The spacecraft carries one instrument and its sole focus is detecting carbon dioxide and watching from space as the Earth “breathes” to see what becomes of the gas.
The instrument is precise enough that researchers will be able to count the number of carbon dioxide molecules in the layers of the atmosphere and use the data to draw conclusions about how the increasing amount of gas will affect things like the global temperature. OCO-2’s mission is to last at least two years.
NASA’s Launch Services Program, based at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, managed the launch preparation and flight into orbit. The OCO-2 mission is handled by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
“We’ve been preparing for the OCO-2 mission for almost two years now,” Dunn said before launch. “The biggest challenge has been in bringing the Delta II launch vehicle out of retirement. The last time we launched on a Delta II was October 2011, a weather satellite.”
The Delta II has been one of NASA’s most reliable launchers ever, registering more than 150 launches for NASA, the Air Force and commercial satellite makers from 1989 to 2011.
The launch team has been visiting Vandenberg during the preparation and spent the two weeks before launch there, running through the last phases of processing and countdown rehearsals.
With the mission safely begun, Dunn congratulated the team soon after OCO-2 separated from the Delta II’s second stage and opened its pair of solar array wings.
============================================================
Now that we have a carbon dioxide spy in the sky, watch for its data to become either secret (if it doesn’t show what they expect) or front page news.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At July 3, 2014 at 8:02 am you rightly say to Don K
But you forgot to add that this is because the natural CO2 emissions and sinks are sufficiently large for the satellite to monitor them but the human CO2 emissions are too small for the satellite to discern them.
Richard
Wayne Delbeke says:
July 2, 2014 at 11:50 pm
Why do they need a satellite when they already have all the answers?
OK Mosh, why do they call the place “CO2 Virtual Science”? Really. Why? LOL. Sorry.
E\#############################################
I can always tell the readers who have never actually looked at data.
They talk about getting the data
They explain to all of how it should be done
They sit at their keyboards and pontificate about how they would do it back in the day.
but they never actually look at data.
Having sample virtual data ready before first light is very useful. Basically I have 45 days to
get a tool chain in place using the virtual data. You’ve probably never worked with this kind of data. When you have, speak up. show your work.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 2, 2014 at 11:19 pm
The spacecraft carries one instrument…
Why no second instrument for backup and verification/calibration purposes?
#########################################################
yet another arm chair rocket scientist/engineer.
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2014 at 5:19 am
My prediction is that they will find Pettersson is right and there is much larger absorption of human emissions that is currently accepted, thus solving the “missing sink” problem…
I don’t think they will find that Pettersson is right: Pettersson used some arbitrary “activity” for the release of CO2 from the oceans, but there is no need to invent such a factor as the pCO2 of the oceans was measured at a lot of places (pCO2 is the equilibrium CO2 pressure of seawater with the atmosphere). The release and uptake of CO2 from/to the oceans is directly in ratio with the pCO2 difference between ocean waters and atmosphere. That gives an area weighted average of 7 microatm more in the atmosphere than in the ocean surface. Thus there is slightly more CO2 uptake by the oceans than release. That is about 0.5 GtC/year in the ocean’s mixed layer and about 3 GtC in the deep oceans from the current about 9 GtC human emissions. Which leaves zero contribution from the oceans to the increase over the past 50+ years. See:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:35 am
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months.
Richard, I have had a lot of discussions with you about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But what you tell here is the most misleading story you have ever told. The increase in the atmosphere is not caused by a year by year increase of anthropogenic emissions, it is caused by the total of the emissions. And the seasonal intake or supply of CO2 has nothing to do with the increase in the atmosphere, it is what is left after a full seasonal cycle which contributes to the increase or sink of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Both can be plotted, as the human contribution is known from fossil fuel sales and the increase in the atmosphere is known from direct measurements. That shows that nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2 for over 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:18 am
It is strange that you put so much faith in your flawed CO2 mass balance model when you can see the failings of climate models devised by others.
A mass balance is not a “model”, it is a simple calculation of ins and outs.
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural releases – natural sinks
4.5 GtC/year = 9 GtC/year + X – Y
X – Y = -4.5 GtC/year with a year by year variability of +/- 2 GtC/year
Thus more total natural sinks than natural sources, how high and wherever these may be…
JohnWho says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:21 am
It is becoming all too typical to see the word “Carbon” used when “Carbon Dioxide” is what is meant.
There is a good reason to use carbon and not carbon dioxide: while it is CO2 in the atmosphere, only 1% is CO2 in the oceans, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate. In vegetation it may be sugars, starch, cellulose,… Carbon atoms can’t be destroyed or created from nothing (except by radioactivity, but that is negligible in quantity). Thus if you make a mass balance, all carbon must be preserved in whatever molecule it is bound. It is much easier to follow the mass movements of carbon than of its different forms…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at July 3, 2014 at 8:58 am.
Ferdinand, whatever you may say or think, the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 emission is the residual of the seasonal variation of CO2 within each year. And that variation can be seen for the Mauna Loa data here.
Wherever the atmospheric CO2 emission is recorded its seasonal variation approximates a saw-tooth and not a sine wave. The saw-tooth is least pronounced at Mauna Loa. This variation demonstrates that the residual of the seasonal variation is NOT because the sinks fill as you claim. During each year the seasonal variation shows a sudden reversal of net sequestration to net emission with no reduction to sequestration rate as the sinks fill; clearly, and contrary to your assertions, the sinks do NOT fill.
The observations are explicable as being the carbon cycle adjusting to altered equilibrium. The continuing annual rise is a result of adjustment by processes with long rate constants (years and decades) while the seasonal variation is a result of adjustment by processes with short rate constants (hours, days and weeks).
If the continuing rise is a result of the carbon cycle system adjusting towards an altered equilibrium state then the cause of the rise is whatever induced the altered equilibrium. This cause could be the anthropogenic emission but is more likely to be the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:19 am
But you forgot to add that this is because the natural CO2 emissions and sinks are sufficiently large for the satellite to monitor them but the human CO2 emissions are too small for the satellite to discern them.
After reading the specs: better than 1 ppmv over small areas (less than 2.25 km x 0.1-1.3 km) it seems possible to detect large human point sources (power plants) and larger human emission areas (industrial and residential).
That the natural emissions and sinks are larger than the human emissions doesn’t tell you anything about the cause of the increase. That the natural sinks are larger than the natural emissions is (almost) sufficient to know that the increase in the atmosphere is (near) completely from the human emissions.
Near: a small increase is caused by the temperature increase since the LIA: maximum 8 ppmv.
Almost: there is a theoretical possibility (according to Bart and Salby) that the natural cycle increased in lockstep with human emissions over the past 50+ years. That means a threefold increase in natural throughput (each natural emissions and sinks). But that should be visible in several observations: a threefold reduction in residence time, an increase in 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, an accelerated decrease of the 14C bomb spike, etc. None of these is observed.
Jeff Alberts says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:43 am
Not stupid, they just forgot a single word: “The only safe way to accomplish a polar orbit from U.S. soil…” There, now not stupid.
Not that it’s important, but the primary issue in not using the Florida launch facility for some satellite launches has always been the likelihood that a malfunctioning booster might drop an spy satellite into Cuba where the government is less than totally friendly to the US and the satellite will end up in the hands of some bunch of techs who will disassemble it with great interest. Whereas South of Vandenburg, it is water for thousands of miles. As a result, the infrastructure to track and support high inclination (polar and near polar) satellites is built out around Vandenburg launches.
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 9:18 am
Wherever the atmospheric CO2 emission is recorded its seasonal variation approximates a saw-tooth and not a sine wave.
It is a sine wave superimposed over an increasing trend, which gives a false impression of a saw tooth. If you plot the monthly averages over the past decades, zeroed in January, it is clear that the seasonal curve is more sinusoid:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
The “residual” average increase was ~2 ppmv CO2 over a year, the average human emissions were ~4 ppmv/year over the same time span…
Temperature is definitely not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere: higher temperatures in general increase the uptake by vegetation and the oceans give at maximum 17 ppmv/K more CO2 in the atmosphere at equilibrium. The combination of oceans and vegetation gives 8 ppmv/K over decades to multi-millennia…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At July 3, 2014 at 9:40 am you say to me
Yes, and it pleases me that you say something we agree.
Sadly, you follow that with this piece of fantasy.
NO!
The SIZE of the natural sinks and natural emissions for CO2 says nothing about the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: change to the natural sinks and natural emissions would tell whether or not they have changed the CO2 in the atmosphere, but those sinks and emissions are not quantified so their changes are unknown.
This goes to the heart of your ‘mass balance’ argument. You assume that nothing has changed except as response to the anthropogenic emission, then you say “the natural sinks are larger than the natural emissions is (almost) sufficient to know that the increase in the atmosphere is (near) completely from the human emissions”. That argument is circular; i.e. your assumption proves itself.
What really needs to be known is what the change of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been if there were no anthropogenic CO2. And that requires a knowledge of the carbon cycle system which nobody has: your assumption that the system was in stasis – and would be in stasis – except for the anthropogenic emission is implausible and does not agree with proxy data indicating many past changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Hopefully the satellite data may reduce some of the near total ignorance of mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle.
And you are being fanciful when you claim to know
Prove it!
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:58 am
“A mass balance is not a “model”, it is a simple calculation of ins and outs.”
And, it has no bearing on the problem. We’ve been over this so many times. Sometimes, you seem to get it, but then you lapse back into proclaiming it as proof. Why do you do that? Is it because it is so effective at convincing uneducated people?
One more time: the fact that the observed rise is less than the virtual accumulation of anthropogenic inputs does NOT prove that anthropogenic inputs are driving the rise. It all depends on the power of the sinks. Robust sink activity would remove the anthropogenic inputs in short order. Whatever is left would then have to be driven by natural influences.
The concentration of carbon dioxide as reported from Hawaii and other terrestrial monitors is of clean dry air at a standard temperature and pressure. This necessarily elevates the ppm of carbon dioxide (water vapor is removed). Will the satellite be able to subtract the water and adjust for pressure differences?
As I was reading the above post I kept thinking “What if the data contradicts their long held beliefs?” Then I see this.
If it fails to deliver, they won’t repair.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at July 3, 2014 at 9:58 am.
Any data can be processed to show anything.
I repeat, this is the Mauna Loa data.
It shows a series of approximate saw-tooth oscillations with each oscillation being the seasonal variation of a year. The annual rise of each year is the residual of that year’s seasonal oscillation.
The oscillation shows no reduction to sequestration rate as sinks fill; n.b. no reduction, none, zilch, nada. In each year the net sequestration reverses and becomes net emission before all the emission of the year has been sequestered. You claim the sinks fill and thus provide the residual which is the annual rise. But it is clear that the sinks do NOT fill because net sequestration ceases before the sinks fill and this cessation provides the residual which is the annual rise.
You process the data and say it shows a different form of seasonal variation. No, a thin man is not made fat by being observed in a distorting mirror.
At issue is WHY the sinks don’t sequester all the emission of a year – both natural and anthropogenic – when the dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate they can.
Richard
RACookPE1978 says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:00 am
Ahhh, foiled by the Coriolis effect, again! Thanks!
But as Mod said, they could launch from Alaska. I’m an analytical, and I react to blanket statements that aren’t accurate. 30+ years as a computer jock messed me up.
An important step for carbonistas and all in the Warmist industry.
For mankind and science, not so much.
Bruce Cobb:
At July 3, 2014 at 10:24 am you say in total
OK. I will bite because your post is so illogical that I would welcome clarification.
How is the launch of the satellite “An important step for carbonistas and all in the Warmist industry”?
Are you saying you think the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has an anthropogenic cause which the satellite data will confirm? If so, then why is such confirmation “An important step” for the industry which has successfully prevented any discussion of their assertion of an anthropogenic cause?
Alternatively, are you saying you think the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a natural (n.b. not an anthropogenic cause) which the satellite data will demonstrate? If so, then why is such refutation of an anthropogenic cause “An important step” FOR carbonistas and all in the Warmist industry”?
And answers to these questions would seem to be important information for “mankind and science”.
Thanking you in anticipation of your explanations
Richard
@richard,
The answer is neither. It is because “counting carbon” is a distinctly Warmist activity, since neither the origin nor the exact level of CO2 matters one whit to climate. Although it might be nice to know exactly how much man is contributing to the greening of the planet via his CO2, I doubt the warm fuzzy matters much to us, and certainly not to Warmists.
Their statement “The instrument is precise enough that researchers will be able to count the number of carbon dioxide molecules in the layers of the atmosphere and use the data to draw conclusions about how the increasing amount of gas will affect things like the global temperature. OCO-2′s mission is to last at least two years.” shows the agenda pretty clearly.
Ferdinand says: “It is a sine wave superimposed over an increasing trend, which gives a false impression of a saw tooth. ”
No. It’s a sawtooth superimposed on an increasing trend, which gives an impression of a saw tooth.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=721
The ‘saw tooth’ is a combination of 12m and 6mo cycles.
Bruce Cobb:
Thankyou for the reply you provide to me at July 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm.
I now understand what you intended – thankyou – and I write to say I disagree. As I see it, the issue is this.
There are four possible findings from the data obtained by the satellite.
1.
The data has no scientific interest and no practical application. This is always a possible outcome of any research, but it seems unlikely in this case. This result changes nothing for warmunism.
2.
The data has scientific interest but no practical application. This result changes nothing for warmunists.
3.
The data has or does not have scientific interest but it indicates that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural. This has great practical application which damages warmunism by indicating no need for changes based on the AGW-scare.
4.
The data has or does not have scientific interest but it indicates that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic. This has great practical application which bolsters warmunism by indicating a need for changes based on the AGW-scare.
Importantly, the actions based on the AGW-scare are being successfully promoted by warmunism and, therefore, there is no practical effect of options 1, 2, and 4. So, only option 3 would have practical effect and it would harm warmunism.
Anyway, that is how I see it.
Richard
Greg Goodman:
In your post at July 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm you say
I say it is a saw tooth and any data can be processed to look like anything.
My post at July 3, 2014 at 10:21 am is here and describes what it is and why it is.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 12:15 am
/////////
But what if CO2 increases irrespective of whether it is natural or manmade, but there is no rise in temperature anomaly, or even a fall in temperature?
Surely, the ins and out of CO2 emissions/exchange as will be measured by this satellite will probably tell us little. What we need to know is (1) does a rise in CO2 in real world atmospheric conditions lead to warming, (2) if so how much warming, (3) will warming plus higher C02 in the atmosphere (bearing in mind its fertilising effect) be beneficial, or will it be a significant problem?
Personally, I do not see that this satellite will cast light on the major issues. I am also a bit surprised that it is launched when the ‘science is settled’ since if it confirms the warmist’s position regarding CO2 exchange etc, it adds nothing to the debate, and if it does not support their position it assists the sceptics. As I see matters, it can only have the potential to undermine the cAGW meme, and very little upside to supporting it.
I am also a little cynical as to whether there will be adjustments just like there was when ARGO came on stream. The constant data adjustments in all the various data sets undermines confidence, so whilst I share your view that the more data the better, the real issue is: can one have confidence in the data that is released for public consumption?
Steven Mosher says:
July 3, 2014 at 8:15 am
Steven,
You are misconstruing what is.being said.
It appears from the published results of many observation systems that virtual modeling goes on prior to their instantiation, both to check the various tool sets for data and information extraction and also unfortunately, to identify likely (expected?) values to be reported. In the current.NCDC case with USHCN we see these likely values being used to replace actual measured observations. NCDC then state that this replacement of actual observations by generated likely values is the correct functioning of the system, so the system was designed to remove real data and replace it with modeled data. !!!
Now you expect everyone to believe that the data extraction and information generation systems for this CO2 sensing satellite, unlike all other such AGW industry funded sensing systems, will not modify the data at source to be in line with the sponsors expectations, and we will not be told that the software is working as designed in modifying the sensed real world data. There is a suspension of belief and lack of trust.
Trust is one of those things that you cannot take, you can only be given it once you have earned it. Once trust is abused it will be taken back and may never be offered again. NCDC IS abusing the trust they have been given, and trust is being withdrawn from all such government agencies as a result. It will be difficult for these agencies to recover that trust. Full publicly available documentation of systems functional and requirement specs, V & V testing scripts and reports, and an audited QMS to an industry standard woould go some way to help. Secrecy, abuse and ‘Harry readme’ files will not cut it.
Why spend all that money when it will be adjusted to be pro carbon causing ‘increase in heat.