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 says:
July 3, 2014 at 12:59 am
————————————————————
Thanks for sharing the link. It looks like a great comprehensive outline on co2 dispersements.
Bart says:
July 3, 2014 at 10:01 am
Bart, theoretically there is a possibility that the an increase in natural CO2 turnover would have the same effect as the supply of extra CO2 from humans. But there is not the slightest sign that the turnover increased over the past 50 years. To the contrary: the more recent estimates of the residence time are longer than the earlier estimates, which is the case for a rather stable throughput with an increased mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But that is not the main point. The main point is that your use of temperature to match the dCO2/dt curve is only applicable if both the short term variability and long term trend are from the same process or at least caused by the same variable (temperature in this case). Which is proven wrong.
The short term variability is caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation. That is clear because the δ13C changes and the CO2 changes go in opposite direction. If it was caused by the oceans, the changes would be in the same direction for both. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
There is a near perfect opposite match between the CO2 rate of change and the δ13C rate of change with the exact timing for both as is visible for the 1998 El Niño.
But vegetation is NOT the cause of the trend in the CO2 rate of change: it is an increasing sink for CO2 over time, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Thus anyway, the short term variability and the long term trend are NOT caused by the same process. For the long term trend, there is an obvious candidate: human emissions, which fit all known observations. You can try to find other candidates which are temperature dependent, but as said in the past discussions: these all violate one or more observations and why should you as there is no connection between the cause of the short term variability and the longer term trend?
richard verney and Lil Fella from OZ:
I am replying to your posts at July 3, 2014 at 1:18 pm and July 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm, respectively. I intend no disrespect by this joint reply which I am providing for convenience because you make the same basic point which Lil Fella from OZ states as
That is an argument to eradicate the corruption: it is not an argument to abandon the progress of true science and seeking for truth.
Additionally, richard verney says to me
Well, if you fail to recognise the first of the “major issues” then of course you will not see how the satellite data may inform it.
I agree the importance of your questions, and I answer them as follows (I could justify my answers but that would be off topic):
(1) some warming but so little that it will not be discernible.
(2) too little to be discernible.
(3) net beneficial.
However, there is a more fundamental question which is an important input to all your questions.
The more fundamental question is
Can anthropogenic (i.e. from human activities) CO2 emissions have a discernible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration and if so then what is the relationship between the anthropogenic emissions and the change to atmospheric concentration?
Obtaining an answer to that question requires much more information and the new satellite is intended to provide data which will reduce the needed information.
Richard
Mission for 2 years!!! Two years in the life of the climate is certainly a waste of money. Better to pay twice as much and have it last a dozen years or more. Also, maybe make it quadruple the price and add all the rest of the significant gases. I have been predicting that the strong paramagnetism of O2 and the diamagnetism (repelled by a mag field) of all other gases in the atmosphere has some effect on distribution. Diatomic oxygen should be somewhat enriched at the poles and the others less so because they are repelled. This should make CO2, N2, O3, noble gases, methane… tend to be proportionately more abundant in the temperate to equatorial zones. Yeah, I understand that other sources and sinks confound the distribution but, lets go with the noble gases as a tracer for the magnitude of the effect. Why is it not interesting scientifically to know the distribution of all the other natural atmospheric gases. My idea has been disputed by smart people on this site using polar vortexes etc to counter my “partial explanation” for the ozone hole (and all the other gases “holes” filled in by O2) but still, I haven’t been convinced that there isn’t a measurable effect.
richardscourtney says: “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.”
I’m not clear whether you intend that to disagree, or not, with my statement that it was saw tooth plus linear rise.
” In each year the net sequestration reverses and becomes net emission before all the emission of the year has been sequestered. ”
So are you saying the 2ppm / year rise is totally the result of the unabsorbed residual of hman emissions? Then why does d/dt(CO2) correlate with SST?
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=720
Also Alert , Canada is dominated by an annual cycle that seems closely linked to temperature and/or ice extent.
I suggest look at Pettersson’s revised papers on this:
http://www.false-alarm.net/author/gosta/
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm
No. It’s a sawtooth superimposed on an increasing trend, which gives an impression of a saw tooth.
Agreed, the downslope is faster than the upslope. The downslope is obviously from the NH start of the growing season, mainly growing new leaves. The upslope is mainly from the decay of leaves in fall and further stems and rotting wood over a longer period. The latter process goes on all year, even under a snow deck, but increasing with higher temperatures.
How about a combination of two processes: one with an uptake peak in spring and rather constant uptake in summer until fall and then fast dropping out, while the second goes on all year, but increasing and decreasing with temperature?
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 10:21 am
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, the seasonal CO2 + δ13C data simply show that the CO2 uptake by vegetation in spring-summer is at maximal speed while vegetation decay is ongoing all year long but increasingly in summer-fall is taking over in August (Barrow, Alaska, sea level) or with a lag in September (Mauna Loa, 3,400 m).
What I don’t understand is why you think that the seasonal uptake can sequester all human emissions, while it is obviously that it can’t as vegetation decay is stronger than vegetation growth for over more than halve the year. If vegetation growth can’t cope with vegetation decay, it can’t cope with even more CO2 from fossil fuel burning…
Greg Goodman:
Thankyou for your reply to me which you provide at July 3, 2014 at 2:29 pm.
I will answer each of your points in turn.
You say
I was merely stating the three different views. My (linked) explanation was of why you rightly discern a near linear rise.
You quote my having written
And respond
Say what!? Where on Earth did you gain the impression that I said, suggested and/or implied “the 2ppm / year rise is totally the result of the unabsorbed residual of hman (sic) emissions”?
I said “the net sequestration reverses and becomes net emission before all the emission of the year has been sequestered”, and by “all” I meant the total of emissions both natural and anthropogenic.
The remainder of your post says
Yes, I know all that. It is why I wrote at July 3, 2014 at 9:18 am saying
I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings
Richard
Ferdi, look at the phase terms for MLO:
0.279 = 18th April for the peak of the annual cycle at MLO
0.446 = 12 th June.and 12th Dec for the 6mo cycle.
The latter is pretty close to the summer solstice in each hemisphere : max insolation.
The former about a month after spring equinox and Arctic ice max extent.
The annual cycle is about 3.5 times stronger.
CO2 at alert seems closely linked to temp / ice extent , not vegitation.
BTW Alert Canada is 82N, to save people digging.
Richard, “This cause could be the anthropogenic emission but is more likely to be the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA).”
I don’t know where “more likely” comes from. I think Gosta Pettersson’s paper is fairly convinces and puts it about 50/50. He backs this up with quite a detailed analysis and numbers.
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Then why does d/dt(CO2) correlate with SST?
Because SST influences in the tropics (ENSO) influences temperatures and rain patterns in the tropical forests: higher temperatures/drought reduce production and/or increase decay. The changes in the CO2 rate of change are from vegetation, not from the oceans as can be seen from the opposite CO2 and δ13C patterns:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
But the long term trend is NOT caused by vegetation, as that is an increasing sink for CO2…
Also Alert , Canada is dominated by an annual cycle that seems closely linked to temperature and/or ice extent.
Again, the cycle is from vegetation, not from the oceans, here for Barrow and Mauna Loa:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
But the variation is opposite to the year by year variation: increasing temperature increases spring-summer extra-tropical vegetation growth and opposite in fall-winter…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for your post to me at July 3, 2014 at 2:55 pm.
I will ignore your point about the isotope data which I have refuted uncountable times because it seems we may – at last – be getting somewhere when you say to me
OK. You make two points which you say you don’t understand.
Firstly, as I have repeatedly explained, the dynamics of seasonal variation demonstrate that the sinks can easily absorb ALL of the emitted CO2 of a year.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration plummets at a near linear rate. There is no evidence that sinks are filling: the sequestration rate would reduce as each sink neared its maximum or filled. The rate remains constant until it reverses because net sequestration switches to being net emission. Clearly, the sinks and sources would have continued to net sequester if something had not increased the emission to overwhelm the sequestration rate. That switch is probably the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean surface layer: the anthropogenic emission is far too small for it to cause the switch.
The saw-tooth form of the seasonal variation demonstrates that the sinks do not fill.
Secondly, you say “If vegetation growth can’t cope with vegetation decay, it can’t cope with even more CO2 from fossil fuel burning”.
That puts things in reverse. If natural sequestration cannot cope with natural emission then there will be a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not there is any anthropogenic emission. And you are assuming that vegetation growth must match vegetation decay which is a non sequiter: growth and decay of vegetation is not total sequestration and total emission.
Richard
Greg Goodman:
At July 3, 2014 at 3:09 pm you say
It comes from one of our 2005 papers which I have been here arguing and referenced above as being
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2014 at 3:11 pm
Forgot to mention: part of the CO2 changes in the high North are from the mid-latitudes, as air is blown in by the Ferrel cells. The summer/winter difference is larger at Schauinsland (Black forest, Germany, 1000 m height) than at Barrow or Alert:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/schauinsland.gif
The delay at Mauna Loa is a matter of mixing speed, some already 40 years old graph shows the delays:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg
There is also a delay between latitudes and a long delay between the NH and SH, as the ITCZ allows only a 10% per year exchange of air masses between the hemispheres:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
The accumulation of atmospheric CO2 is caused mostly by the annual temperature cycle, IMO.
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 10:21 am
—————————————————-
This page has been a very educational read. Thanks for adding so much to the conversation. I see some light to what I had been puzzling over in regards to the differences in yearly co2 growth at ML vs man,s increased co2 output. Your point of the ‘unknown factors’ regarding the ins and outs of co2 makes sense to me. I look forward to seeing the output from OCO2.
“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.”
How will they keep from counting a molecule twice? The rascals move as quick as you count them.
Ferdi: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg
Looks very interesting , if only was labelled so we knew what it represented.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
Seems to suggest that Arctic is driving global CO2 variation.
More from NASA on that A train.
OCO-2 Takes the A-Train to Study Earth’s Atmosphere
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.”
Are we to believe these conclusions have not already been drawn?
Ferdi: ” The summer/winter difference is larger at Schauinsland (Black forest, Germany, 1000 m height) than at Barrow or Alert:”
I had not seen Schauinsland, thanks, I just plotted it against Alert.
It’s not large, it’s almost indentical in timing and magnitude, good matches in each year across the 12y overlap Only diference is at the level of the noise. Now that makes it very “well mixed” between those two locations. MLO is rather different.
Germany could be said to be “downwind” from Alert, whereas it would have to across Europe, Asia and the tropical Pacific before getting to MLO.
“It comes from one of our 2005 papers which I have been here arguing and referenced above as being Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)”
Richard
===
Can we see it?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:11 pm
“Bart, theoretically there is a possibility that the an increase in natural CO2 turnover would have the same effect as the supply of extra CO2 from humans. But …”
No “but”. Either your statement proves what you say it does, or it does not. It does not. Therefore, stop claiming it.
“…there is not the slightest sign that the turnover increased over the past 50 years.”
Yes, there is.
“Which is proven wrong.”
Isn’t. Watch, and see what they find.