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.
The NASA description is inspiring, but not entirely candid. Beyond the fanfare of government bureaucracy is this reality from http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/MeasurementApproach/ :
“The OCO-2 mission will not, however, directly measure CO2 sources and sinks. Instead, sophisticated computer-based data assimilation models that use column averaged dry air CO2 mole fraction (Xco2) data will infer the location of these sources and sinks.”
That’s right. They’re going to infer it… from models. Would those be the same models on which the IPCC bases its claim that increased CO2 follows entirely from man? NASA’s new satellite may do it with greater coverage and precision, but it’s still just measuring CO2. That’s what the Japanese have been doing for some time: http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html
Quick plot showing how similar atmpheric CO2 in southern Germany and Arctic Canada (82N) are:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=985
Steven Mosher says:
July 2, 2014 at 11:11 pm
Steven, you are a smart guy, but don’t you think after climategate, the recent business of estimated data making up such a large proportion of the data for temp in the US, hockey sticks made of selected trees, upside down proxies and inappropriate statistical concoctions, forcings of retractions of bad papers through the single-handed work of McIntyre, the whitewashes of the Team by friendly investigators and other dubious activities in climate (and other) science(s) that an abundance of scepticism is to be desired? There is no check on bad science without it and an overdose of scepticism will do no one any harm. It can be easily shown to be out to lunch if the science is sound and defensible. Who do you know that is actually even trying to defend the CAGW theory these days, other than employment of ridicule and name calling? This house of cards is crumbling now, only because of scepticism. Don’t expect sceptics to be moderate and measured after all the chicanery.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/MeasurementApproach/ :
“The OCO-2 mission will not, however, directly measure CO2 sources and sinks. Instead, sophisticated computer-based data assimilation models that use column averaged dry air CO2 mole fraction (Xco2) data will infer the location of these sources and sinks.”
Hey what? I thought it was going to be “counting molecules” !
Now I’m wondering how the satellite is going get them a “dry air CO2 mole fraction ” to feed into the model. I guess via another model of how much water vapour and cloud there is !!!
We just need to estimate a few parameters for water vapour and cloud, based on recent IPCC report and off we go ….
Gary Pearse says:
July 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm
See my comment at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/13/nasa-to-attempt-launching-another-carbon-observatory-the-last-one-burned-up/#comment-1661306
The meat:
Mission Duration
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 is designed to operate
for at least two years, long enough to validate a
novel, space-based measurement approach and analysis
concept that could be applied to future long-term, spacebased
carbon dioxide monitoring missions. The spacecraft
could continue to fly well beyond its nominal two-year lifetime,
however.
More coming: http://science.nasa.gov/missions/oco-3/
This satellite will only confirm the work done by Princeton scientists at the turn of the 21st century. Since findings were suppressed and ignored by the Warmist marxist watermelons.
The Princeton peer reviewed papers never challenged showed that the USA is a vast biological Sink for CO2 as our ranchers farmers, lumbermen and farmers bio sequester CO2 blowing in the winds from Eurasia. It is hte greatest bio-sequester CO2 sink in the world. The most developed country in the World consumes and sequesters CO2 as it makes food and fiber and lumber from the inputs. US air is depleted of CO2 as the air travels from West to East across America from Pacific to Atlantic.
Meanwhile America feeds itself and a good part of the world too; and provides an elevated standard of living for its citizens.
So how does this satellite deal with the factoid that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere ?
So perhaps now they can regenerate that graph of the pole to pole three dimensional CO2 variation, that NOAA/NASA magically disappeared some years ago once it was discovered that CO2 isn’t well mixed, or have a 200 year residence time..
So this thing is only going to work for 1% of the claimed residence time; hardly enough data to get a decay time constant.
“””””…..stas peterson says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:50 pm
This satellite will only confirm the work done by Princeton scientists at the turn of the 21st century. Since findings were suppressed and ignored by the Warmist marxist watermelons. …..”””””
Small correction stas, The USA is only the largest LAND carbon sink.
The oceans of course sink more.
“””””…..richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 7:35 am
Don K:
At July 3, 2014 at 2:46 am you ask
What I take away is that the atmospheric CO2 measurement program put into place by Keeling in the 1950s tells us that CO2 (unlike water vapor) is reasonably well mixed across the planet and is increasing. What this satellite is intended to do is tell us exactly where the CO2 originates and exactly where it is being removed from the atmosphere, And the quantities being sourced/sunk. Do I have that right or am I totally confused?
You have that right.
The IPCC reports provide simplified descriptions of the carbon cycle. In of our 2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
we considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be:
Mechanisms of the carbon cycle
Short-term processes ……””””””
Richard,
I’m surprised that you do not even mention the annual arctic sea ice melt and refreeze.
If one assumes that the near surface Arctic Ocean CO2 concentration, is close to the Henry’s law equilibrium value; when the surface refreeze starts, CO2, and also salt, are preferentially excluded from the solid phase by the appropriate segregation coefficients, which favor the liquid phase over the solid.
So the newly forming sea ice dumps off its salt and CO2 (and other stuff) into the interface ocean waters, which presumably are already at the saturated equilibrium values.
As a result, the CO2 that was in the now new ice as water, will be immediately vented to the atmosphere driven by Henry’s law. So atmospheric CO2 in the arctic, grows during the refreeze, and of course, when the melt starts, the newly melted fresh water, will uptake salt from the ocean, and CO2 from the atmosphere.
There isn’t enough greenery growing and dying at the north pole, to explain an 18-20 ppm cyclic change in atmospheric CO2 over the year.
Steven Mosher said on July 3, 2014 at 8:25 am:
Yes Moshy. Of course Moshy.
Because as all good scientists know, when you can choose between having another instrument for doublechecking your measurements and for backup, or choosing to trust only one that will wear down and someday break, you choose having only the one instrument to do good (climate) science.
Greg Goodman:
Your post at July 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm asks if “we” can see the 2005 paper I have been reporting here. Sadly, it is behind a paywall and I am now on the Editorial Board of E&E so I cannot ignore the publisher’s policy and provide a copy.
However, I gave a presentation to Heartland 1 which is almost entirely a ‘copy & paste’ from that paper. If you email me I will send you a copy of the paper I there presented.
My email is richardscourtneyATaol. com where AT is @ur momisugly.
Richard
george e. smith:
re your post at July 3, 2014 at 11:28 pm.
Yes, you are right about seasonal melt and freeze near the poles, and the observed change to local atmospheric CO2 is large. However, I was discussing the Mauna Loa data obtained from half-a-world away.
In my opinion, your post emphasises the need for real measurements of atmospheric CO2 which it can be hoped the satellite will provide.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 3, 2014 at 3:22 pm
I will ignore your point about the isotope data which I have refuted uncountable times
Richard, the past discussions were about the trend in δ13C, not the seasonal changes. These are much larger, both in CO2 change as in δ13C change over the seasons than the trends over a year. The point is that the combination of CO2 change and δ13C change shows what the origin is of the CO2 change: if the CO2 change is from the oceans, the δ13C change is going up with increasing CO2. If the CO2 change is from vegetation, then the δ13C is going down with increasing CO2.
This is what happens, thus the seasonal CO2 change is dominated by changes in vegetation and mainly the extra-tropical NH vegetation. The oceans may play a role, but that is minor compared to vegetation. That can be seen in the near absent seasonal changes in the SH: less extra-tropical vegetation and lots more ocean:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
The saw-tooth form of the seasonal variation demonstrates that the sinks do not fill.
Sorry, but the form of any process doesn’t prove that such a process is going on up to infinity. Some processes (like leave formation) may go on extremely fast but may end abrupt when saturated (when all leaves are formed), other processes may start slowly (the formation of wood in stem and roots) and increase over time, reduce when the temperature is above optimal (summer) and increase again in fall until the temperature is too low. That makes the tree rings with high density wood from fall and low density wood from spring-summer.
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.
Both the downgoing and upgoing CO2 levels are from vegetation. CO2 release from vegetation decay is taking over from vegetation CO2 uptake at about mid-summer. Thus the process of vegetation uptake can’t beat vegetation decay for over halve the year.
The balance over a year is slightly more uptake than release (based on oxygen production/use). That is about 1 GtC/year for the whole biosphere (ocean + land). Human emissions are 9 GtC/year.
Bart says:
July 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Come on Bart, the variability around the CO2 rate of change trend is almost completely from the influence of temperature variability on vegetation. The CO2 rate of change trend is certainly NOT from vegetation, as vegetation is an increasing sink for CO2, thus with a zero to negative trend in rate of change.
Two different processes at work, where the origin of the short term variability is well known, but not the origin of the trend. It still is possible that temperature also causes the trend, but it is very unlikely as none of the temperature connected alternatives fit all observations, while human emissions do.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for your reply to me at July 4, 2014 at 1:30 am.
You make two points. Firstly, you say
No. The arguments about the trend and the seasonal changes are the same. Indeed, this is not surprising because – as with atmospheric CO2 content – the annual rise is the residual of the seasonal variation.
The direction of the change is as expected by your assertions (there is a 50:50 chance it would be) but its magnitude disagrees with your assertions by a factor of 3. This is NOT a clear indication of “the origin is of the CO2 change”.
You make assumptions about “dilution” and say, “See I can make the isotope data fit” and I say “So what? An ability to make the data fit only shows your assertions are possible: it does not show your assertions are right”.
Secondly, I wrote the simple truth that
And you have replied with
Ferdinand, you are much better than that that illogical – indeed, silly, – response which is not worthy of you.
Nobody is claiming anything is “going on up to infinity”. I wrote
That is not saying anything increases to infinity. It is saying the net sequestration rate shows no indication that there is saturation of any sinks; e.g. as one plant stops growing another starts growing and together they form a sink which continues unabated. In other words, the form of the seasonal variation shows you are plain wrong when you assert that the sinks are being overloaded so that is why they fail to sequester all the CO2 emission of each year.
I again repeat
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
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2014 at 4:56 pm
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.
Thanks for the Alert vs. Schauinsland plot, I expected that Schauinsland would give a larger fluctuation, but it seems almost identical. The problem at Schauinsland is that there is a lot of local contamination from the nearby forests and the readings are only valid if the station is above inversion.
Because the seasonal variation is largely from vegetation, I suppose that the mid-latitudes are leading as there is quite a lot more vegetation there than at the tundra near Alert or Barrow. I haven’t looked at plots of the ice/snow extent around Alert (or temperature plots), but I have the impression that CO2 levels there are already dropping before snow/ice is melted near the stations.
Mauna Loa CO2 variation is lower, as it takes time to reach lower latitudes and higher altitudes via the Hadley cells. Mauna Loa is mostly in the trade winds and also partly influenced by exchanges with the SH via the ITCZ. The lag plot is the variability of CO2 over the seasons, which was based on upper troposphere – lower stratosphere commercial flights between Scandinavia and the USA:
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_16/SCOPE_16_1.4.1_Bishoff_113-116.pdf
The graph was at Scope, but the reference is gone…
richardscourtney says:
July 4, 2014 at 1:55 am
No. The arguments about the trend and the seasonal changes are the same.
Richard, you have a completely wrong interpretation of the seasonal graph:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
It is not about the residual changes, which are quite small (2 ppmv, 0.02 per mil) but about the huge changes over the seasons: Barrow: 15 ppmv, 0.85 per mil. That has nothing to do with human emissions or its “dilution” by exchanges with the deep oceans.
All what is shown is that the direction of CO2 changes and δ13C are opposite to each other. That proves beyond doubt that the seasonal changes are dominated by vegetation, not the oceans, both for the downslope and the upslope. And it proves that the CO2 uptake by vegetation can’t cope with vegetation decay for more than halve the year.
george e. smith says:
July 3, 2014 at 11:28 pm
So the newly forming sea ice dumps off its salt and CO2 (and other stuff) into the interface ocean waters, which presumably are already at the saturated equilibrium values.
Arctic ocean waters are highly undersaturated in CO2: pCO2(oceans) is at minimum 250 μatm while the atmosphere is around 400 μatm (~ppmv). Thus the flux is into the ocean waters which by the increased density from salt content and lower temperatures sink into the deep.
See Feely e.a.:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I write as a courtesy to acknowledge your post addressed to me at July 4, 2014 at 2:36 am.
You say I “have a completely wrong interpretation of the seasonal graph” and I know you do. Perhaps we are both wrong: time will tell.
I have stated my views and I am content to allow your comment to remain as being the ‘last word’.
Richard
The downslope is obviously from the NH start of the growing season, mainly growing new leaves.
===========
how is it “obvious”? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say:
The downslope is assumed to be from the NH start of the growing season, mainly growing new leaves.
The downslope is obviously from the NH start of the growing season, mainly growing new leaves.
==========
yet we hear that plankton is the major source of CO2 -> O2.
the amount of annual sunlight reaching each hemisphere follows a sine wave. one would expect CO2 from vegetation to integrate this and return a sine wave.
on the other hand, when you integrate a square wave you get a triangular waveform, which much more closely resembles the CO2 curve.
I suspect the CO2 curve is due to something much more interesting than can be explained by vegetation and sunlight alone.
“Looks very interesting , if only was labelled so we knew what it represented.”
Greg, here is the source for that graph:
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter03.html
Edim says:
July 4, 2014 at 6:49 am
Thanks a lot for finding that link! That is one of the big problems with the Internet: pages are moving or disappearing,,,
ferdberple says:
July 4, 2014 at 6:36 am
I suspect the CO2 curve is due to something much more interesting than can be explained by vegetation and sunlight alone.
Of course a lot of different processes are at work with the main drivers temperature and sunlight. Both for land and ocean vegetation, temperature makes that it is an integration from the mid-latitudes up to the outmost Northern areas in spring and opposite in fall. But I think that land vegetation is the main cause of the curves, as there is far more CO2 and δ13C variation in the NH than in the SH with its much larger ocean area…
Anyway, the exact opposite CO2-δ13C curves show that it is vegetation that causes the seasonal CO2 variation, not the oceans…