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.
That´s great. In Uruguay we have the best beef in the world, and we just love our “asados” (grilled beef made with wood embers). Now I am living in Spain, and I really miss them. But it is great that we can have enjoy them without remorse (not that we ever had any bad feeling, I assure you)
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=715
This map also clearly shows the importance of temperature on the net flux. Assuming 1995 was not a freak year, this supports Gosta Pettersson’s work showing that temperature effect on out-gassing is at least a important as human emissions.
“we’re supposed to pony up and pay the developing countries megabucks to ease their pain”
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0939571234/ecoimpegreepo-20?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
Greg Goodman says:
July 6, 2014 at 1:19 am
I had the impression that Schauinsland had a higher seasonal amplitude, based on its CO2 plot, but that was because it had more outliers. Nevertheless, there is a lag between the SH and the NH and between altitude and ground level :
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
Equally the reduced amplitude could be because of the larger area of water acting as a sink and reducing the variation.
The main sink of CO2 is in the NE Atlantic. But the amplitude anyway is from vegetation, even in the SH, as can be seen in the opposite variation of CO2 and δ13C. If it was from the oceans, both CO2 and δ13C would go in the same direction.
Increased temperature will give more CO2 from the oceans and more absorption by vegetation, but as can be seen in both hemispheres: vegetation is dominant…
So; no need for Santa, his reindeer or any elves overtime this Christmas given this year’s gift giving windfall has come so early
Perhaps a tiny grudging comment from John Winston to encourage Tony A to finally ‘fess up, man up and come out; and better still that young Malcolm ought to consider physics instead of witchcraft as a path to the Big Gig
And of course, one and all offer a kind thought to Ray Evans shade and his untiring efforts to save the world’s great unwashed & clueless from themselves
Jo Nova has a good post on the same thing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/co2-emitted-by-the-poor-nations-and-absorbed-by-the-rich-oh-the-irony-and-this-truth-must-not-be-spoken/
Occasional sparse measurements of atmospheric CO2 does not constitute a detailed global map of fluxes. Otherwise there would be no need or justification for the OCO satellite launced a few days ago. The detailed data is absent and we already know that carbon cycle models are not up to the ask of estimating data where there is none.
A pretty graphic based on guesses remains just that.
johnmarshall says:
July 6, 2014 at 1:34 am
Unfortunately for the alarmists it has now been established that it is impossible to differentiate between volcanogenic and FF produced CO2 because they are isotopically identical.
Sorry, but that is not true. Volcanogenic CO2 is either from the mantle or subduction, the latter is mainly from seafloor carbonates which are around zero per mil δ13C. Deep magma CO2 is slightly lower in δ13C of around -5 per mil (with isolated exceptions to -25 per mil). Human and vegetation releases are average at – 24 per mil, which makes it possible (together with the absence of 14C) to know the origin of CO2 even near volcanic vents. See:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377027399000761
http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/courses/Geosc518/15_Random_Mixing_Model/Chapter_15/Mantle%20Carbon.pdf
A map centered at the Atlantic would be nice.
Ferdi says: “The main sink of CO2 is in the NE Atlantic. But the amplitude anyway is from vegetation, even in the SH, as can be seen in the opposite variation of CO2 and δ13C. ”
The map you linked shows your “NE Atlantic” goes well above Norway. There is a large white area in most of the Arctic indicating no data. That is also a major part of the sink.
Have you thought that a large part of your “vegetation” attribution may be water-borne in the form of plankton?
According to Wikipedia, Australia has over 15 acres of native forest per person so it should be a net sink
cynical scientist says: “Apparently our cows belch and fart so much that the inclusion of methane puts us back among the ranks of the sinful. ”
I never recall seeing a single cow all the time I was in NZ. A land of sheep I always thought.
Ferdi: there is a lag between the SH and the NH and between altitude and ground level :
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
If you mean a time lag , I think you are seeing what you want to see. The inter-annual ups and downs seem fairly synchronous between all those regions. with possibly a greater magnitude in the north. There is a north-south gradient. How that can be interpreted in the context of the previous observation is not obvious.
Clearly this would be more informative if using monthly averages or even daily data.
Someone else was posting about this latitude gradient recently but I can’t recall his blog where he discussed it.
This is some thing that needs looking into, thanks for bringing it up.
As always, if you are interested in “trends” plot rate of change not some steadily increasing time series which is the integral of the trend and filters out most of the useful information, allowing you to read into it what you will.
Willis: The satellite is IBUKI, not IBUKU.
Ibuki means originally “fetal movement”, and is in general used for “a movement for a bright future.”
However, since Ibuku is a verb form of Ibuki (noun), your nomenclature is not utterly out of order.
The Japanese have had a CO2 satellite for 5 years? What does NASA hope to accomplish with another? Maybe since the Japanese have detected no meaningful change in sea level for several decades they must be wrong abut CO2 as well.
umm so that satellites been up for quite a LONG time
why>
do we have only ONE full year of data..an that ones so many years out of date?
just wondering:-)
I am not much of an R programer, but it would be interesting to see the CO2 data normalized on both a regional and national, “per capita” basis.
Greg Goodman says:
July 6, 2014 at 2:32 am
There is a large white area in most of the Arctic indicating no data.
The area covered by ice isolates the waters for more CO2 uptake. But there were ships surveys until the edge of the ice above Russia…
Have you thought that a large part of your “vegetation” attribution may be water-borne in the form of plankton?
Yes, but as plankton is far more abundant in the SH and especially around Antarctica, one would expect a larger seasonal variation in the SH, which is not the case.
Greg Goodman says:
July 6, 2014 at 2:55 am
Clearly this would be more informative if using monthly averages or even daily data.
It is also clear in monthly data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
South Pole CO2 data also go down in Austral spring and up in fall and δ13C goes opposite, thus caused by vegetation, despite the larger ocean area and less forests. The lag between Mauna Loa and Barrow is clear, the lag between SH and NH too, but as Samoa is in the influence of the ITCZ, it receives irregular extra CO2 from the NH peak during several months.
Greg Goodman,
These days by far the biggest export industry in New Zealand is Dairy. Cow numbers have increased dramatically over the last 10 to 15 years at the expense of sheep. Dairy is also more intensive than sheep or beef farming. Deer (Venison) is also tending to replace and/or complement sheep farming in some areas.
In addition the sheep are being bred for multiple births at lambing so these days the ewes are individually more efficient at producing lambs. Thus we don’t need as many ewes.
An accurate description would be that pastoral farming is a very strong and growing industry in NZ. We export tasty processed/recycled CO2 to all corners of the globe.
Written by an NZ Dairy farmers son.
Willis. Northern Canada is full of fresh water lakes. Does fresh water sequester CO2?
nickreality65 says:
July 6, 2014 at 4:46 am
The Japanese have had a CO2 satellite for 5 years? What does NASA hope to accomplish with another?
Much better resolution: less than 1 ppmv over a much smaller area… Should be capable to see individual strong emitters like power plants and industrial areas but also strong sinks like agriculture and forests…
Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 6, 2014 at 1:15 am,
I agree that the preliminary data Willis is working with may be doubtful. The net ocean uptake (Willis shows -0.006 gC/M^2/day) compared to the global average flux (+0.026 gC/M^2/day) seems clearly inconsistent with earlier estimates of net ocean sequestration. Of course, higher biomass sequestration might make up the difference, but then we would expect to see much less O2 depletion than has been actually measured.
This is excellent news.
I guess if we combine this data with some regional data (say from the study noted here- http://phys.org/news/2014-07-people-growth-nasa.html ) we could come up with a way to have say the Bay Area governments pay the more rural counties in the state for managing lands to improve carbon sequestration (and the albedo)-
..”The researchers found that the magnitude of changes in plant growth over the 29-year study period was different depending on the size of nearby population. Near areas defined as dense settlements – with about 500 people per square kilometer – the vegetation index increased by 4.3 percent. That’s less than near villages, where the vegetation index increased by almost 6 percent.”
A payment of say $200.00/ton for the biomass, and maybe something like $500.00 for not putting asphalt pavement on driveways. As we have some data for 29 years I guess we could even have the payments be retroactive. Seems like a fair scheme to me- heck if we can pay Sierra Pacific for not cutting trees in the forest, why not pay folks for actually producing something (greenness) that the powers that be say they value.
Instead of handing us a bill for “climate reparations”, a simple “thanks for all you have done for us, and particularly for helping to green the planet” will suffice.