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.
Adrian O says:
July 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm
China’s exports naturally were hurt, yet its CO2 emissions continued to grow, albeit perhaps at a lower rate.
I’d like to think that the whole ~120 ppm gain since c. AD 1850 owes entirely to naturally warmer seas, but IMO evidence from the hotter than Holocene Eemian interglacial suggests not. The highest estimate or observation of peak Eemian CO2 I’ve seen is about 330 ppm. The Holocene Optimum was warmer than now, although not as hot as the Eemian, & I don’t think its concentration exceeded 300 ppm (could be wrong). Even allowing for imprecision, IMO some substantial portion of the apparent rise since the end of the Little Ice Age thus is most likely man-made.
Not that that is a bad thing. So far, it has been good for plants & other living things. Anthropogenic catastrophe is not in the cards.
Adrian O says:
July 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Human emissions are reasonably well known, because of fossil fuel sales (taxes). These show only a small dip during the recent economical crisis. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
emissions still twice the increase in the atmosphere, which is far more variable.
What is likely is that, as 98% of the CO2 is dissolved in oceans
A non-argument: if it doesn’t exchange with the atmosphere, that doesn’t matter at all. If it does exchange, the quantities exchanged don’t matter at all. All what matters is the difference of what is released and what is absorbed en that is currently more sink than source. See:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
the extra CO2 is mostly due to the chemical balance shift due to ocean warming
No it isn’t. The equilibrium between the ocean surface waters and the atmosphere increases with 17 ppmv for a maximum 1°C temperature increase since the LIA. That is all. Vegetation absorbs more CO2 with higher temperatures. The average result over the past 800,000 years is 8 ppmv/°C. Thus 8 ppmv maximum since the LIA. The measured increase is over 100 ppmv since about 1850. Reason why the net flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans and not reverse, because of the elevated pressure.
Really late, but here is what I see, and it credits what I learned in soil science way back when.
The cooler areas of the temperate climates and the warmer subpolar are net sinks as a result of their climate and diurnal periods. Let me explain:
During the short summer, the extended diurnal period allows for a flush of growth in the photosynthesizing plants. The soils remain cool or frozen just below the rooting zone. As the OM elevation increases, so does the permafrost. While the accumulation rate varies as well as the permafrost elevation, the general direction is an increase in depth. Only in sun facing slopes or in aquatic habitats does decomposition exceed the rate of accumulation of organic matter, with the exception of acidic bogs with floating mats of OM. THE ACIDIC NATURE IN THESE habitats serves to preserve OM. It is this easily observed state, verified by peat accumulation, as well as the prevelance of organic soils that this CO2 data substantiates.
As the observations move toward the equator, the ratio of release:uptake approaches 1:1, then again reaches an opposite imbalance.
Various geographical, anthropogenic, and climatological influences do overcome the general ratio. These are rain shadows, agriculture and urbanization, oceanic currents such as the gulf steam.
[Define your terms for other readers who don’t know your specialty. OM elevation = ?? .mod]
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 6, 2014 at 12:05 pm
“Frank, SCIAMACHY measures the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. The IBUKU satellite measures the net local emission/absorption of CO2. These are very, very different things.”
You are incorrect W. IBUKI (not IBUKU) measures only CO2 concentration.
http://global.jaxa.jp/activity/pr/brochure/files/sat02.pdf
Emission of CO2 is “estimated”… from models. Would those be the same models that the IPCC uses to make its claim that increased CO2 comes only from humans? Even their estimates indicate that’s a long way from the truth.
En Passant says:
July 5, 2014 at 10:42 pm
I do love people who come to my threads to proudly announce that they are not reading my threads for the highest moral reasons … if I’m “not on your reading list” as you say, En Pissant, then what are you doing here?
In any case, I spoke out against Dave Evans’ shameful hiding of his data and code when he published his second post on the subject. We’re now up to … hang on, let me check … no less than eleven posts on the subject, and he is still hiding his code and data. If I tried that, people would bust me heavily, and rightly so—that’s not science in any form.
After fighting for years against scurvy folks like Michael Mann and Phil Jones doing the same thing, there’s no way I can condone David Evans hiding his code and data. It would be the rankest hypocrisy on my part were I to do so.
To forestall your obvious objection, yes, very likely someday David’s code and data will eventually be made public, just as Mann’s and Jones’s code and data were eventually made public … so what? The eventual release of Mann’s and Jones’s code and data did not somehow make their secrecy scientifically acceptable, no more than it does for David when and if he finally decides to join the ranks of transparent scientists who are open about all of their work.
Now, I see that you disagree with my position on revealing data and code, and that’s your choice. And I absolutely don’t want this thread to become a referendum on the previous dispute, so let me invite people NOT to comment on it. I’ve retired from that fray entirely, I have no further interest in it at the moment other than countering your attack above. The discussion continues over at David and Jo’s place, so please comment there if you feel you have to comment. As I told David, I’m out of there, I’ll weigh back in when he comes to his senses and publishes his results.
And while I have no problem with you holding that position, I don’t see that standing foursquare for hiding data and code as you are doing gives you some kind of high moral position to lecture me … but I’m sure it makes sense to you.
Finally, you seem to think that I care if some anonymous internet fly-by-night who supports hiding data and code reads my work or doesn’t read my work … you do what you have to do, En, it makes no difference to me. I much prefer dealing with honest transparent scientists and the folks who support them, so I assure you, you won’t be missed.
w.
Of course, now the the US has build their infrastructure using coal for many years, they want to phase out coal via international agreements so they can deny it to the developing world, thereby locking in the US development head start. And if it takes some payments to corrupt third world leaders to keep the rest of the world in poverty, it is a small price to pay to guarantee American dominance.
The Chinese have a somewhat different plan in mind. Under the Chinese plan, the US is going to be on the hook for hundreds of billions in reparations for cumulative emissions, having been for many years the worlds biggest CO2 polluter. The US has backed themselves into a corner, with the EPA’s determination that CO2 is harmful, the US can hardly argue that their years and years of record emissions haven’t harmed the rest of the world. Well, they can of course argue, just not credibly.
It is going to take some serious coin under the table to stack the deck. vote for us, get a world bank loan. set for life. vote against us, forget about it.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 6, 2014 at 1:31 am
Thanks, Ferdinand, interesting comment. A quick look around the web shows CO2 solubility in rainwater to be 1.2E-5 moles/litre at 355 ppmv CO2 (bottom of page).
Since one mole of CO2 weights 44 grams, this is equal to 528 milligrams per litre at 355 ppmv CO2, or about 595 mg/l at 400 ppmv. This is about 450 times the number you give … so at this point I’m in mystery.
What is the source of your figures?
Best regards,
w.
johnmarshall says:
July 6, 2014 at 1:34 am
John, you are very frustrating … you raise a fascinating possibility but provide absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Regards,
w.
michael hart says:
July 6, 2014 at 2:15 am
Perhaps you could explain to us how the satellite results are “occasional sparse measurements” …
w.
Josualdo says:
July 6, 2014 at 9:22 am
Nor could you if I were to change the map, the countries there are too small to distinguish.
Which is why I provided the country-by-country breakdown in text format, so everyone could see it and analyze it for themselves. “As has already been said twice”, to quote you, that data is here.
w.
Re Figure 1: What’re the two rather high-level (red) spots in north central Canada (I’m guessing north Saskatchewan, northeast of Calgary/Edmonton, northwest of Lake Winnipeg)?
Secret mega-doughnut factories?
Willis,
WRT CO2 dissolved in rain, you are clearly correct about the amount dissolved (~0.528 mg/liter). But I think this amount is still not very important. For example, if average global rainfall is ~1 meter per year (just as an example), the total dissolved CO2 in that rain is about 0.528 gram per year per square meter, equivalent to 0.528*(12/44)/365 = 0.000395 gC/M^2/day, versus 0.026 gC/M^2/day global average flux from your post above (that is, about 1.5% of the global average emitted flux). So in the short term, rain carrying CO2 to the surface is probably not very important. In the very, very long term, that CO2 in rain can dissolve mountains, of course.
Willis,
Sorry, my comment above was based on mis-reading your earlier comment to Ferdinand. The solubility is in fact 1.2 * 10^-5 mole/liter, which is equal to 0.528 MILLIGRAM per liter, not 0.528 gram per liter…. your dissolved weight (0.528 g/liter) is too high by a factor of 1000. Which is why the flux of CO2 dissolved in rainfall it is not significant compared to the global average flux.
Steve, you are right. I was figuring micrograms instead of milligrams. Second time I’ve made that mistake in public … dang, I hate that, but wrong is wrong, and I certainly was wrong. It’s about half a milligram of CO2 per litre,
And I agree with all of your figures, except one. The problem is that you are using global average rain, while I’m talking about tropical rain. That is often three or more metres per year, meaning that it is 5% of the net rather than 1.5%.
However, that still might not be enough to explain the variation. Like I said, its’s all speculation on my part . Another possibility is that the ITCZ is an area of general upwelling of deeper water, which might make it different than the surrounding area.
Having said that, the amount of CO2 in air, unless I’m wrong again, is:
1.29 g/m3 air density * 400 / 1000000 CO2 by volume * 44/29 density ratio CO2 to air ≈ 3/4 of a milligram of CO2 per cubic metre of air
So a litre of rainwater has about 2/3 of the amount of CO2 as a cubic metre of air … and 3 metres of rain on one square metre of area is 3,000 litres of rain. This is enough to absorb 10% of the CO2 in a 20 kilometre tall column of air.
I think this is the difference between local and global … or else I’ve just made another error.
Ah, well, since the science is settled, I guess we’ll just have to ask the scientists … do I need the sarc tag?
w.
I thought that slightly(sometimes not so slightly) acidic rainfall on carbonaceous rock was a net emitter of CO2? Isn’t this one of the major worldwide sources of atmospheric CO2 releases?
Willis:
This is a genuine attempt to return to serious discussion and to escape from the situation whereby I try to defend myself against your unfounded accusations and attacks delivered for no stated reason. This attempt to return to rationality is not me ‘running away’: it is because I see no purpose in the ‘war’ you seem to want. And I suspect the attack is not personal because I am not the first person subjected to it; e.g. your recent unfounded and unreasonable attack on the excellent Tony brown. So, I will attempt to return to rationality by explaining the scientific issues in my post at July 6, 2014 at 12:26 am which is here.
I stand by my scientific points that said
The importance of the ENSO issue was subsequently emphasised by milodonharlani who – in his post at July 6, 2014 at 1:24 pm – listed “the annual CO2 growth rates as recorded at Mauna Loa” and said
Clearly, in these circumstances it is not clear as to whether attribution of atmospheric CO2 rise is predominantly anthropogenic or natural. The new satellite may provide data to assist the attribution. And, therefore, I see no logical objection to my even-handed caution that said
That caution is important for several reasons, not least that governments are adopting an assumption of anthropogenic cause and are distorting energy and environmental policies on the stated basis of that assumption. Indeed, your essay comments on demands for distorted economic policies of “reparations” based on the assumption.
(Sadly, your unfounded attack at my having quoted and accepted your statement about 2010 being “the only full calendar year of data in the dataset” has hindered discussion in this thread of effects of assumed anthropogenic emission.)
My comments concerning Australia and Sub–Saharan Africa pertain directly to this attribution issue.
Unfortunately, you went berserk because I wrote
Firstly, I need to say that there was – and is – no need for me to rehearse my arguments against your suggestion because – as I said – there is no data to resolve which of us is right. Your attack on me for saying that truth is unfounded: I allowed your assertions to stand and merely said I don’t agree which gives you the effective ‘last word’.
The Australia issue is simple. The two cities are islands of net emission surrounded by a large sea of net sequestration with result that the area has more than complete sequestration of the CO2 from the cities. This demonstrates that the CO2 emissions from industrialisation can be – in this case they are – completely sequestered locally. Emissions that are completely sequestered locally do not contribute to global rise in atmospheric CO2 emission.
And, as I said, this provides the question I stated; viz.
And I quoted your answer to that question saying that your answer can be debated. Your response was to pretend that I had confused Australia and Sub-Saharan Africa. No, I did not. I asserted that the same principles which govern emission and sequestration apply in Australia and in Sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass is replaceable and its replacement sequesters CO2 but fossil fuel burning only releases CO2. The per capita energy use (provided by biomass) of Sub-Saharan Africans is much less than the per capita energy use (provided by fossil fuels) of Australians.
These are scientific issues with serious scientific and political implications. As I said in conclusion of my post which induced your attacks
Richard
Willis
You realise that that in Australia The Climate Council’s, Professor Will Steffen who recently endorsed the sacked Australian Climate Commission’s latest (pre Abbott) report “Abnormal Autumn” saying ‘we have had an abnormally warm autumn, off the back of another very hot ‘angry summer’ and went on to say ‘Climate Change is here, it’s happening, and Australians are already feeling its impact’ will be in emergency session with his other ‘crowd funded, independent organisers like Tim ‘Flim’ Flannery and a certain cartoon illustrator.
Will and his mates furiously Cooking up left handed arguments against the IBUKU study and developing a climate algorithm similar to that applied to the Australian Land Temperature series, all derived and heavily weighted against using the 600 or 700 years of coal that we must keep in the ground and of course China and India who are burning all our exported coal will be trying ship at least any reparation/carbon tax back to it’s suppliers, same with Russia’s latest gas deals!!
I can see this developing into either a dung fight or bunfight and more torturing of the data. Or they may seek to export their populations to us to even up the statistical headcount. All political hot topics here at present.
Willis,
A liter of air weighs about 29/22.4 = 1.29 gram, so a cubic meter of air weighs ~1290 grams. The weight of CO2 is then 1290*(44/29)*(400/1000000)= 0.78 gram of CO2 per cubic meter of air, while a liter of rainwater dissolves ~0.528 milligram of CO2. It would take a cubic meter of rainwater to dissolve ~2/3 of the CO2 in a cubic meter of air, not a liter.
Ferdi: “As one can see: the temperature rate of change drives the CO2 rate of change and the δ13C rate of change both with a lag. ”
The lag is because it is T not dT/dt that you should be plotting. Adding a 12mo filter to Bart’s plot makes it a lot clearer. The lag disappears and the true causal relationship becomes evident.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1959/scale:0.3/offset:0.1/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7
I have posted this relationship a long time ago but Bart’s idea of using SH only does seem to provide a closer correlation.
Willis,
WRT the pattern of ocean surface flux: if there were no thermohaline circulation, then the ocean would be most everywhere a net absorber of CO2, since rising atmospheric CO2 means the concentration of dissolved CO2 in the ocean dissolved lags far behind the atmosphere. But with thermohaline circulation, the tropics are a net emitter due to the warming of upwelling cold water (which contains a lot of CO2). The pattern in the Pacific is especially clear because of the strong upwelling near South America, which warms a lot as it is pushed westward by the trade winds. The slight net absorption to the north (starting near the average position of the convergence zone) is most likely due to the effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, combined with a relative lack of upwelling/warming water in that region.
Ferdi: “the short term variability is the result of temperature variability on vegetation, ”
Doesn’t seem to be borne out by data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1959/scale:0.12/offset:0.1/mean:12/mean:9/mean:7
Ferdi says: 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.
===
Thanks that is clearer.
The peak of MLO and Barrow show no lag. The trough about 1mo. The early rise at Barrow seems only slightly reflected in MLO. Claiming an overall lag between the two looks very tenuous.
“the lag between SH and NH too,”
Hey they’re in anti-phase because of the seasons. Who is lagging who? Trying to use that to support causation is a non starter.
Rob R says:
July 6, 2014 at 5:42 am
Thanks for bringing me up to date on NZ farming. It was over 20 years ago I was down your way, so it looks like things have changed.
Venison is the most tasty meat I’ve ever eaten. No wonder the nobility used to reserve it all for themselves. Unfortunately most of it in Europe has been grazing a bit too near Chernobyl, so I avoid it.
Never seen any NZ venison for sale here, if I saw some from a non polluted country I’d jump for it.
If you like venison you’ll love elk and moose will be off the charts.
Ferdi: The area covered by ice isolates the waters for more CO2 uptake.
Indeed which means that the cold water sink will have a strong annual variation related to ice coverage.
CO2 Alert Canada:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=970
The sharp trough does not look like a gradual onset of leaf decay but it does look a lot like the rapid trough in ice coverage :
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
and it matches in timing to within about a week.