Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Much of the current angst at the UN regarding climate has to do with the idea of “climate reparations”. These are an imaginary debt supposedly owed by the major CO2 emitting nations to the countries of the developing world. As the story goes, we in the industrialized world have been “polluting” the atmosphere with the well-known plant food CO2, and despite the lack of any evidence of any damage caused, we’re supposed to pony up and pay the developing countries megabucks to ease their pain. 
In that regard, I’ve spent the morning laughing at the results I’ve gotten from the Japanese IBUKI satellite CO2 data. It shows the net CO2 flow (emission less sequestration) on a 1°x1° grid for the planet. Their website describes the project thusly:
The Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT), developed jointly by the Ministry of the Environment Japan, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (hereinafter the Three Parties), is the world’s first satellite designed specifically for monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from space.
The satellite has been in operation since its launch on January 23, 2009. The Three Parties will now publicly distribute the data of global CO2 fluxes on a monthly and regional basis for the one-year period between June 2009 and May 2010. These flux values were estimated from ground-based CO2 monitoring data and improved GOSAT-based CO2 concentration data.
It has been confirmed that uncertainties in CO2 flux estimates can be reduced by the addition of GOSAT data to the ground-based observations. This is the first concrete demonstration of the utility of satellite-based concentration data in the estimation of global CO2 fluxes.
It is expected that this progress in the field of global carbon cycle research will lead to more reliable climate change prediction and to the development of effective environmental policies for mitigating global warming in the future.
So why was I laughing? Well, let me unfold the story. First, here is the map showing the net emissions for 2010, the only full calendar year of data in the dataset:
Figure 1. Net emissions by gridcell, IBUKI satellite CO2 data. Click to embiggen.
Now, there are some interesting things about this map.
First, it appears to be pretty accurate. For example, if you look at the lower right part of Australia, you can see the two big cities of Sydney and Melbourne as red dots in the sea of blue.
Next, you can see that while the central Pacific is a net emitter of CO2 (yellow band from above Australia to South America), the intertropical convergence zone immediately north of that is a net absorber. I speculate that this is because of the large amount of rainfall in the area. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in rain, which is why all rain is very slightly acid. This absorbs more CO2 than in the drier area to the south.
In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.
Next, by and large where there are lots of humans there is a lot of CO2 emitted. Yes, there are also some areas where CO2 is being emitted without much human habitation … but generally, humans = CO2.
So … I figured I’d take the data and divide it up by country, to see how much CO2 each country either emits or absorbs. The answers were pretty surprising … Figure 2 shows the top 20 biggest net emitters of CO2.
Figure 2. Net emissions by country.
That’s where I started laughing … I can just see France demanding climate reparations from India, or the UK demanding reparations from the “Democratic” Republic of the Congo … It gets better. Figure 3 shows the top twenty sequestering nations …
Figure 3. Net sequestration by country.
Funnier and funnier … Sweden and Norway get to demand reparations from Russia, Finland can send a bill to the USA, while Australia can dun China for eco-megabucks.
Now … how can we understand some of these results? I will speculate, as I have no direct data … although it is claimed to be in the IBUKI datasets, I haven’t got there yet.
First, there are two big missing items in the previous standard CO2 accounting, sequestration and biomass burning. In most of the poor countries of the world, they are so ecologically conscious that they mainly use renewable energy for cooking and heating. And despite being all eco-sensitive and all these uncounted millions of open fires burning wood, twigs, and trash add up to a lot of CO2. Plus a bunch of pollution making up the “brown haze” over Asia, but that’s another question …
In addition, both India and China have huge permanent underground wildfires in their coal seams, spewing CO2 (plus really ugly pollution) 24/7. The other wild card is sequestration. In Australia, I speculate that it is due to the huge amount of exposed rock and sand. The mild acids in the rain and the dew dissolves the rocks and sand, sequestering the CO2.
In Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland, I’ve got to assume that it has something to do with being far north and having lots of forests … but there are still lots of unanswered questions.
Anyhow, that was my fun for the morning … someone should write all of this up for the journals, I suppose, but I always feel like I have to give myself a lobotomy to write standard scientific prose.
Anyone want to go co-authors with me and handle the writing and the submission?
And my congratulations to my Argentinian, Brazilian, and Australian friends for winning the carbon lottery, they can demand climate reparations from every other country on the planet.
My best to everyone,
w.
BONUS GRAPHICS: Someone requested white color at the zero level:
And here are the breakdowns by region …
THE USUAL REQUEST: If you think that someone is wrong about something, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS. I SHOUT BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT. QUOTE THEIR WORDS so that we can all understand exactly what you are objecting to. If you object to a long comment and all you link to is the comment, that’s not useful. We need to know exactly what you think is incorrect, the exact words that you find to be in error.
CODE: It’s ugly, but it’s here. It’s an 18 Mb zip file including code, functions, data (NCDF files), and product sheet. I think all parts are there, ask if you have questions.
SPREADSHEET DATA: I’ve collated the country-level data into a CSV file here.
DATA: It took a while to find it, because it’s at another website. You have to register first. Afterwards, log in, click on “Product Search and Order”, and select L4A global CO2 flux.
PRODUCT SHEET: The details of the various CO2 products are here, from the same website, not sure if you have to log in first. It’s also in my zipped file above.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pat Frank said: “So, as Chiefio noted, it appears that countries of the southern hemisphere and China owe CO2 reparations to Europe, Russia, and North America”
Why not make the reparations process even more granular? Within the U.S. why not let the industrialized northeast and upper midwest buy carbon credits from the carbon absorbing states? Instead the administration has proposed future C02 guidelines which are punitive to states that are not contributing net C02 emissions. What’s up with that?
All that “policy makers” should care about is that the money and power shall filter through them. Let the flow of taxes/reparations/carbon credits/stimulus funds begin!
A small point, but it seems odd to show the scale dark blue, green, light blue, yellow. People generally understand that green lies between blue and yellow – and indeed that green is neutral. When you look at that mass of green, you don’t get the feeling that this is the equivalent of orange on your scale. I’d suggest the graphic would be much clearer if you eliminated green and stuck to blues/purples for absorption.
In Australia, I speculate that it is due to the huge amount of exposed rock and sand. The mild acids in the rain and the dew dissolves the rocks and sand, sequestering the CO2.
————————————————————————————————————–
Not so. its where the there is a high concentration of trees. Eastern Aus isn’t all desert!
Mild acid rain? Nonsense. Are there red dots in Sydney/Melbourne looks more like yellow or orange?
Looking at figure 1, it is strange that Tibet would be such a strong absorber of CO2.
@ur momisugly Willis…Thanks for the alternate ‘white’ graph. I thought there was more neutral to the oceans. The colors used, blue to green, for negative are not so easy to take in. I did color matching of paints and stains for almost 3 years. The hardest color to match was the greens.
If the so called CO2-experts had realised that they don’t have a case, that be the day….
What they got is figures from stations on land and in sea not placed there for CO2-alarmists needs but for vulcanoexperts to be able to find a pattern in order to be able to warn for next exuption and/or earthquake.
As if that not all, the satellites never ever measure anything but reflexion when it comes to temperatures – not the same as actual temperatur on surface; and CO2-figures from what best could be said to be alike “photos” – changes in colors by using certain filters. Now the later never is the same for a certain area in time, over time and above all never ever after “corrections” As you all know land that seen a heavy rain aren’t looking the same neither on land or from “air” before and after – depending on ground circumstances a heavy rain can cause problem in part of your land (ask any farmer if you don’t believe me) but 200 meters from the problem area the situation can be a complete different situation. Thus the satellites using data which in it’s raw-fact situation is based on what best can be described as colors can seem alike for a large area but on ground the situation can be from water drained to overflooded within short distance on land but a small seen from satellites….
All so called CO2-analyses also have one other big problem: When ever you have readings which best can be described as apples and peaches – they all could fall under same label “fruit” but they never are exactly the same nor taste the same with or without “correction”…..
In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.
Next, by and large where there are lots of humans there is a lot of CO2 emitted. Yes, there are also some areas where CO2 is being emitted without much human habitation … but generally, humans = CO2.
————————————————————————————————————-
Yes in tropics for other reasons.
Not necessarily so re humans. The thing missing in this “analysis” is that there are huge quantities of soil organic matter that are released to the atmosphere not just human emissions.
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_23/SCOPE_23_3.2_chapter4_111-127.pdf
Perhaps you should have researched this a bit more thoroughly.!
Willis
That was quick, Very interesting. of course it is unfortunate that there is only 1 full year of data. As I mentioned in the other article, if you have time to add DLR and OLR as overlays, it would be interesting to see whether there is any correlation with CO2.
Given the sinks, is CO2 well mixed?
Some of the results are surprising. For example, I have lived in both Norway and Sweden and whilst I am not surpirsed that both are net sinks, since they are both well forested with small populations, it surpirses me that Sweden is more of a sink than Norway; Sweden has a larger population and is more industrialised (Norway’s main industries are off-shore such as oil, gas, shipping and fishing). It may be something to do with the high northern latitude.
I share your view about ‘false’ accounting involved in burning biomass. The inescapable fact is that bio mass has a low calorific value and hence per unit of energy required more mass has to be burnt and more CO2 is produced. That is why it is madness to replace coal generators with biomass generators.
The lie rests within the claim that the bio mass absorbs during its own lifetime as much CO2 as it emits when burnt, such that it is CO2 neutral. That may apply to the planting of a new forest (ie., to forest land which before was simply barren land), but it is not applicable when you cut down a forest and replace an existing forest with a new forest. The old forest was already absorbing CO2 and would have continued to do so, if it had not been cut down. Accordingly, cutting down the old forest and replanting it so it grows back does not change the CO2 budget at all. Nature has, of course, already solved so many ‘problems’. If the government is truly concenrned about CO2 emissions and will not sanction new coal or gas powered generators without CCS, the simplest solution is to build a conventionally fueled generator (or keep an existing conventional fueld generator in service) and plant a new forest, ie., plant a forest on what is presently simply scrub land.
I believe that this ‘falsehood’ was based upon the assumption that young trees grow faster and therefore absorb more CO2. That assumption has always surprised me given the volume of a cylinder (such that a small increase in girth of an established tree involves more mass than a large increase in girth of a young sappling) and the canopy area of an established tree is far larger.(with presumably correspondingly more leaves). Recently, I saw a paper (unfortunately I have not got the reference) in which the CO2 absorption of young and old trees was compared and the conclusion of that paper was that old trees absorb just as much if not more CO2 than young trees.
The upshot of this is the point you make with India. It would reduce emissions in India, if they were to electrify and build conventional power generators such that wood burning stoves for cooking and heating were no longer necessary or used. It is ironic that providing poorer countries with conventionally powered generation would in fact be ‘green’ in the sense that there would be less CO2 and modern designed generators are far cleaner pollutionwise to open burning of wood.
I bet Australians would have liked to have seen the data and your analysis before the implication of their much hated carbon tax. The government would have had a hard time selling it to the public if that data had been widespread news in their MSM. It does show how ‘dishonest’ government are since I suspect that the government new that Australia was not a net emitter of CO2, even if they dod not know how big a sink it is. .
“First, it appears to be pretty accurate. For example, if you look at the lower right part of Australia, you can see the two big cities of Sydney and Melbourne as red dots in the sea of blue.”
I don’t think so. Sydney is more than a dot now. Compare Darwin to the East coast of Australia.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/population.html
Etna in Italy emits a lot of volcanic CO2. Are volcanic emissions filtered out of the reported results?
The ref to M. Burton (INIGV?) in the livescience article doesnt seem to be available. Not sure if that is significant
http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29
You would think New Zealand would be able to congratulate itself on being a net Carbon sequesterer. But no. Apparently our cows belch and fart so much that the inclusion of methane puts us back among the ranks of the sinful. I woud have thought all those drained swamps and wetlands converted to productive farmland would have counted as positive in terms of cutting methane emissions. But apparently no. Of coyurse that doesn’t stop the Greens from also blaming us for destruction of wetlands.
Is the red path in the Northern territory of Australia related to scrub fires?
I’ve been pointing out for a couple of years that Australia absorbs about 20 x what it emits, and that the increase in bioproductivty due to the change in CO2 concentration from 360 PPM to 400 PPM has already completely offset Australias anthropogenic emission. Australia’s Nett emission is already below that of 1995. We’ve done our duty now and all the green schemes can be cancelled.
PS, I want to be the one to send Australia’s reparation bill to India, I think Rajenda Pachurri in particular should pay up…
What is the cause of all the CO2 coming out of the southern portion of central Africa?
Richard T,you should do a write up on this and try and get it in “Stuff” news. They are having a run on global warming now.
The developed countries may not be guilty as stated but their politicians have pleaded guilty, and even working hard to pay reparations for their guilt. Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration as signed by almost 192 countries is ” States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. ”
Then Principle 27 of the same declaration -“States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfillment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development.” You could have the best lawyer and the best detective presenting evidence on the contrary but if the defendant pleads guilty and offered reparations, what could the judge do?
Hello. We Chinese have bought out the country you call Australia. We demand you merge the data sets together to give true Chinese position.
These results should be partitioned into Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Of course the SH would win hands-down, as that is where all the oceans’ water vs. land mass is. Accelerating Antarctic sea ice accumulation anyone?
Question? Is there a Keeling plot of CO2 for Antarctica?
One thing I always wondered about the Keeling Curve is, why it doesn’t seem to show economic slowdowns, like the 2009-2010 worldwide recession? Man-made CO2 output must have slowed but did a 2nd derivative of the Keeling Curve show this?
Willis,is it o.k. To use some of these figures on comments in our “Stuff” news in New Zealand?
MR. Willis, Thank you for taking the time to write this, but since reading your uncalled for tirade on Jo Nova’s blog I reached this point without reading it as you are no longer on my reading list and have gone from interesting to being a mere Mann in one easy move. It takes years to build a rapport, it only takes one ego-fuelled rant to end it. Along the way you have done WUWT no favours, but that is Anthony’s problem
I will move to reading the work of others, so Goodbye.
Thanks Willis, as usual an interesting read…
What is surprising thought are some of the blue areas, especially around Tibet. Pehaps as you suggested for Australia, the rocks are being disolved by acid rain?. However, in Australia the areas shown in blue are areas of thick forest and pastures running along the great dividing range of NSW.
Joel O’Bryan says:
July 5, 2014 at 10:20 pm
They are partitioned into NH and SH. Look at the header in Figure 1.
Billy NZ says:
July 5, 2014 at 10:40 pm (Edit)
Of course. Put in a credit to me and a live link to this post, so folks can come see the full extent of the humor …
w.