Guest essay by Ric Werme
It’s been a long wait, but OCO-2 speaks!
Let’s start with a timeline:
- Feb 2009: NASA’s $273 million Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite crashed into the ocean near Antarctica shortly after launch today from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Bummer.
- Jul 2014: Try 2 was successful. The instruments checked out, we all look forward to results.
- Nov
21042014: NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center releases an animation of a model of CO2 flow across the Earth. Visually, it’s very attractive and feels right, but it doesn’t look at all like the OCO-2 imagery. It may be the scaling, it may be OCO-2’s poor temporal resolution, it may be partly including a carbon monoxide display. I’m sure the modelers will have lots to do for the next few years! - Dec 2014: Well, it took a while, but the first image from OCO-2 is release and it’s really not what we expected. There’s a lot of CO2 over China, and a lot that appears related to slash and burn agriculture, but Europe and the US look pretty good.
- July 2015: The New Horizons mission finally reaches Pluto. This team did things right. They posted images as soon as they had them. We could watch it get closer to Pluto, we could see Pluto up close right after the flyby, and they’re still releasing images as fast as the slow, weak downlink delivers them.
- Aug 2015: I get tired of waiting on OCO-2 and send Email to the OCO-2 PR contact asking what’s up. A month later I get a reply that includes:
Over the next couple of months, we will be releasing a number of new OCO-2 visual products to the public. Stay tuned! And thanks for your interest in the mission.
- Oct 2015: I’m not the only impatient person at WUWT, I see. However, Erik Swenson did something about and produced his own imagery. He did a great job.
- Oct 2015: The OCO-2 team releases a YouTube video showing the same sort of images that Erik released. I haven’t compared them yet, I wanted to get this up quick.
Check out first full year of OCO-2 science operations.
The video is interesting, but is missing mid-April to mid-May. I’m impressed at how quickly plants pull down CO2 in the northern spring, though I noticed that before I noticed the missing month. I’m impressed at how much CO2 is released in the tropics. I’m intrigued that there seems to be a bit of a surge in CO2 before spring triggers plant growth. Perhaps thawing ground releases CO2 produced by tree roots and rotting vegetation during the winter.
[Update – on the sampled area.]
A number of early comments refer to how much surface area doesn’t have imagery. I suggest reviewing Erik Swenson’s post and comments, a lot of that dialog applies here.
There’s also a link to NASA’s Data Product User’s Guide which goes into a lot of detail.
First, the CO2 measurements are done with a spectroscope. Light from the Earth’s surface enters a telescope, a small sample is selected from a slit. That line of light is bounced off a diffraction grating onto an imaging chip that provides 1016 pixels of the spectrum. There are three spectrometers tuned to areas of interest for O2 (I assume this is used to measure intensity), and two bands of CO2’s spectra.
Light has to go from the surface of the Earth to the satellite, and to measure the tiny differences due to changes of CO2 concentration, they want a bright source on the ground. They measure from two different paths (on different orbits). First is the “nadir” reading where the satellite looks straight down. This is not very bright, but it has the best spatial resolution. The other direction is to look at sunlight’s glint reflecting off water. This is much brighter, so it’s easier to measure the brightness of the spectral lines.
The measurements require that from the point being observed, the sun has to be at lest 5° above the horizon in nadir mode and 15° above in glint mode. Clouds, terrain, etc. can make for poor or unusable data. Still, it appears to me that NASA isn’t imaging as much data as Erik did.
Keep in mind that OCO-2 is one of the first satellites doing this sort of work. Astronomical spectral analysis generally doesn’t do the resolution that OCO-2 needs and has the opportunity to take very long exposures. So while climate scientists are looking forward to the data, the designers will be looking at things to do for the next design.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What about the massive non-fossil fuiel emissions of SE Asia in 2015 ?
This year when airports on the West side of Indonesia are not closed cos of the MASSIVE annual haze from forest burning, it seems the Eastern ones get closed cos of the Lombok volcano.
Link :BBC News :Indonesia volcanic ash grounds tourists for third day
– Here in the west side after 10 weeks of smog it may have finally gone, last Tuesday the smog was still around, but almost every day since for one week there has been heavy rain in the evening, so this time maybe the smog won’t come back.
Would somebody please explain to me: why is the colour-coded portion of the animation moving up and down? The OCO-2 satellite is in polar orbit, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for lack of data.
The animation is following the Sun. See my comment below.
Yes, but WHY? The whole grey part of the globe is hardly in total darkness, even if sunlight was somehow required to measure CO2.
Yes, but in winter the Sun is lower in the sky. So light from that region has to traverse the atmosphere twice: Sun-to-Earth and Earth-to-OCO2. The obliqueness lengthens the path, reducing the quality rating of the extracted spectra, which is difficult even when the Sun is overhead.
Only highest quality readings are available in the LITE dataset. The reduced quality of the oblique path readings is consistent with the missing data. It clearly is following the overhead Sun.
The lead image here, like the ones in the NASA animation, represents amalgamated readings over a 15-day period (NB that the animation does not show a continuous series – some fortnights are missing).
Have detailed data been released for any particular 15-day period that could be linked to meteorological records to study to what extent CO2 is carried by air masses and whether any change in density with time varies e.g. according to the nature of the earth surface being traversed? Or are NASA working on that?
Did you see the animation from the CO2 model from November 2014? While it’s a model, it has much better temporal resolution than whole earth scans from OCO-2. It shows low pressure systems picking up large chunks of CO2-rich air and dragging part way across the planet.
As for using OCO-2 data, the global scans look interlaced, so one ought to be able to trade spacial resolution for temporal resolution. I don’t know if the result would be worth watching.
Questing Vole
You make an interesting suggestion when you ask
But I am puzzled.
What relationship would you expect between local “meteorological records” and “CO2”?
and
how would you discern it from weather over 15 day periods?
Richard
The expected relationship would be the advection of CO2 by global winds.
In fact NASA has a tool, GEOS-5, which integrates local concentrations (obtained from total CO2 columns) with local winds. The resulting integration produces stunning animations, which might correspond somewhat with “reality”, depending on the accuracy of the data. The biggest problem, IMO, is that the OCO-2 doesn’t report CO2 ppm by height, so some fudging is likely occur in selection of which layer of winds to use.
https://youtu.be/Cgd26JtBXOM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/20/agu14-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-surprising-co2-emissions-in-southern-hemisphere/#comment-1818181
NASA doesn’t seem to be using the GEOS-5 tool currently, so perhaps its limitations have crysalized.
Johanus:
Let me summarise your comment.
The suggestion by Questing Vole is meaningless, and NASA used a model simulation (GEOS-5) in attempt to integrate local CO2 concentrations (obtained from total CO2 columns) with local winds but has abandoned using the model probably because it does not work.
Richard
“The suggestion by Questing Vole is meaningless …”
No, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that. That may be your assessment, not mine.
I simply believe there is a useful relationship between CO2 concentrations and weather, which will help explain and predict the migration of CO2 concentrations. How could you not also believe that?
The fact that GEOS-5 failed to express that relationship completely correctly does not imply that this expected relationship does not exist. It merely shows that a better model is needed. Not just a simple integration of global winds with CO2 columns, but a more complete model using diffusion and advection, data assimilation with better hydrodynamic modeling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_assimilation (aka Bayesian reasoning)
Yes, we need models to make any quantified measurements in the physical world. Models all tend to be wrong, some more than others, but no measurements of anything can be made without using a model of some kind.
The GEOS-5 model apparently had some issues, but it was useful in the sense of being the first step in the evolution of more correct (i.e. “useful”) migration models in the future.
Johanus:
I stand by my summary of what you wrote but I accept your claim that you intended to say something else. And that ‘something else’ is not valid. You now say
I do not “believe” there is a useful relationship between CO2 concentrations and weather because I have seen no evidence of it.
Clearly, some CO2 is washed out of the air by rain and the air (including the CO2 it contains) moves with the wind while biological activities vary with temperature and sunlight, but it is a stretch to say that those factors will induce a discernible and “useful relationship between CO2 concentrations and weather”.
The GEOS-5 model has been abandoned and your post I answered assumed it was abandoned because it did not work. You now say
Your assumption has now become your “fact” and – if true – that fact only says the model does not work to some unspecified degree which is sufficient for use of the model to have been abandoned. It says nothing else.
Richard
Richard,
Your said
and then you went on to say that CO2 can be washed out by rain or carried by the wind.Certainly that would qualify as ‘evidence of usefulness’. Indeed, it would be very useful to folks who say they are interested in finding sinks and sources of CO2. (Also to folks who track “pollution” and other aerosols). (Disclaimer) I spent 7 years of my career in computer science tracking gas plumes in the atmosphere, using similar techniques.
“Your assumption has now become your “fact”…”
No. Completely wrong. You’re putting words into my mouth again. I said GEOS-5 produces stunning animations (It does). But I also said that there were limitations (possibly due to wind layer selection) so the results may not always correspond to reality, i.e. not completely correctly.
So do you not agree then, that it is indeed a “fact” that it “does not express that relationship completely correctly” In other words, GEOS-5 was not a failure, as you believe, but was actually a fairly useful first-order approximation to the fluid dynamics of CO2 flows. Future models may improve that approximation to reality.
There is no dissonance in what I wrote, only in your incorrect interpretation of it.
@Ric Werme
“… CO2 measurements are done with a spectroscope. Light from the Earth’s surface enters a telescope, a small sample is selected from a slit. “
That’s a bit misleading. More accurate to say: “Light from the Sun, reflected from the Earth’s surface …”. It’s misleading because OCO-2 is analyzing light only in the 2-micron band, which is comes almost entirely from the sun. At longer wavelengths, above 4 microns, the Earth does emit its own light (IR), which dominates over solar IR.
So OCO-2 is employing a technique which would be best used from ground stations, which would only have to integrate incoming solar. OCO-2 has to integrate two trips, Sun-to-Earth and Earth-to-OCO2. In fact the sensor used in OCO-2 was deployed in a dozen or so ground stations for extensive pre-launch testing (TCCON)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/18/early-results-from-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-2-mission-to-be-presented-at-agu14-via-live-stream/#comment-1816853
That explains why the animation seems to follow the Sun. The evaluated CO2 columns are graded by quality. And obviously the higher the Sun is in the sky, the higher the signal-to-noise ratio. So evidently only the highest quality estimates were used in the animation.
Observations over water are a special problem, because water almost totally absorbs IR, making it look black in the reflected optics. But reflected IR can be detected at critical Brewster angles, called “glints”. So glint observations are used to estimate CO2 columns over water.
IMHO it would have been much easier to exploit “earthshine”, in the 4-18 micron IR bands, to make these estimations, substantially reducing the complexity of the experimental design, allowing it to work day and night over the entire globe. But the critics say that water vapor absorption of IR dominates these bands, posing as ‘noise’ over the CO2 signal. But if H2O absorption dominates then how can that CO2-only induced warming thingy be such a great threat to mankind? 😐
Ric Werme said:
That was probably an intentional act because, according to the Keeling Curve, etc., etc., …. the measured/calculated yearly maximum atmospheric CO2 ppm most ALWAYS occurs post mid-April to pre mid-May of each and every calendar year. Note month 5 ppm data herein, to wit: NOAA ESRL DATA: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Being a Biologist … I would be utterly amazed and flabbergasted iffen someone could provide factual evidence that the “greening” of the NH biomass was capable of performing such an amazing “trick”.
I am positive that there is a “a bit of a surge in CO2 before the NH spring triggers plant growth”, …. but I’m also positive that “surge” is so small that it is immeasurable. CO2 emissions due to microbial decay of dead biomass begins before the “greening” of the live biomass …… and due to the fact that the initial “greening” of the live biomass is accomplished via the previous year’s CO2 absorption, the “stored sugars” in the roots and seeds, ….. thus said “green” biomass is incapable of absorbing atmospheric CO2 until its new foliage (leaves) is mature enough to do so. Therefore there is a one (1) to three (3) week “window” between the afore stated “outgassing” of CO2 and the “ingassing” of CO2.
Now I learned a long time ago that most microbes that are responsible for “rotting & decaying” are a highly “unionized” work force …. and they refuse to work iffen the dead biomass is too “dry” (lack of moisture) ….. and/or ….. their work “output” starts drastically decreasing iffen the temperature drops below 60 F …. and they pretty much refuse to work when the temperature drops below 40 F. And that is the exact reason that us humans purchase coolers, refrigerators and freezers for the storage/storing of our “dead biomass” edibles.
The Fall (dry) and Winter (cold) seasons are not the most productive times for the aforesaid microbes.
@Samuel Cogar
“That was probably an intentional act because, according to the Keeling Curve, etc., etc.,”
I understand your cynicism because I too believe the upper level (i.e. politically appointed) NASA staff is indeed infested with political activism.
But thankfully, the lower levels (non-appointed permanent staff) show more dedication to the science of the mission. I subscribe to the monthly OCO-2 email updates (conducted by Annamarie Elderling) which report periodic corruption of data which explains most of these ‘gaps’ I think. I have seen no politically motivated remarks in these report updates.
For example, a recent update included this remark
which follows the guidance on data quality established by the principal investigators:
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/support/
Now one might accuse these researchers of deliberately fabricating phony data to make these remarks seem to be true. But I am not that cynical. I think the OCO2 science team, at the working level, is mostly about the science and one should accept the updates as factual and honest (unless there is solid evidence of hanky-panky).
You should register for their mailing list, which will periodically inform you of new data and milestones. I get a couple of emails a month, not a distraction for me.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/register/
@ur momisugly Johanus
Maybe they do, …. maybe they don’t, …… but it matters not one (1) “twit” one way or the other.
The upper level (i.e. politically appointed) NASA/NOAA staff ….. oversees, monitors, controls, edits and/or authorizes all communications and documents that originate via one or more of their subordinates and which are intended for public view.
The literal fact is, …. the historical Surface Temperature Record is FUBAR, ….. always has been FUBAR …… and will always be FUBAR.
The per se “CO2 warming”, be it at or near the surface or high in the atmosphere, ….. “is here today …. and gone tonight” ….. and thus it is asinine, silly and idiotic for anyone to be wasting their time and other people’s money at guesstimating the past, the current or the future “effects” that CO2 might or maybe have on earth’s climate.
“Junk science” is ”junk science”, ….no matter how much some people want to believe differently. CAGW is nothing more than a devout Religious belief that has the bejesus scared out of those who are non-educated or miseducated in/of the sciences of the natural world.
Ferdinand et. al.
“Thus while only some 6% of the natural carbon cycle, humans are responsible for 90% of the increase in the atmosphere. 10% is from warming oceans.”
The only way the 1750 to 2011 numbers work (Figure 6.1) in assigning 90% to man is an entirely fabricated fudge factor of .43%. See IPCC AR 5 figure 6.1. All these C/CO2 “balances” are made up guesses, approximations, judgment calls, proxies, who knows? with enormous uncertainties. IPCC AR5 Table 6.
I found the reason why the NASA CO2 satellite data is missing key months.
The cult of CAGW ignores observations and analysis that disproves their silly, pathetic Bern model (the Bern mode, CO2 sources and sinks, has specifically created to push CAGW and is not supported by observations) and disproves CAGW.
The majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 50 years is due to (1. Ocean warming, solar modulation of planetary cloud cover caused the oceans to warm, note planetary temperature changes do not track CO2 levels, remember the 18 year period with no warming) and (2. Deep earth CH4 flow) solar modulation of the CH4 flow from the deep earth.
Humluum and al’s paper which looked at the time of changes of CO2 (timing analysis or phase analysis determines cause and effect as cause cannot follow effect.) found that the changes in atmospheric CO2 track ocean temperature not anthropogenic CO2 emission.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
P.S.
There are now obvious bi-monthly observational changes in the sun. If I understand what is currently happening to the sun and how solar changes affect the mechanisms that modulate planetary cloud cover we are going to experience abrupt Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling followed by a Heinrich event.
Solar wind bursts are the reason for the sudden warming both poles and the warming of the tropical ocean. The solar wind bursts are caused by solar coronal holes. The solar coronal holes are caused by some process deep within the sun as the rotational period of the coronal holes remains the same with solar latitude and matches the rotational speed of the solar core.
The rotational speed of the sun is less with high latitude and at high latitudes is roughly 40% less than the solar equator. Sunspots which float on the surface of the sun rotate with the same speed as the solar surface plasma.
The solar coronal holes are high speed protons which are emitted from large regions of the solar deep core. The solar coronal holes can persist for months, so a string of solar coronal holes in low solar latitude position will create a string of wind bursts. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which in turn causes a current flow from high latitude regions of the planet to the equator. The charge flow changes cloud properties and lifetimes in both high latitude regions and the equator which causes warming both locations. The effect lasts for 3 to 5 days so there needs to a series of solar wind bursts to cause warming rather than a single large burst.
There are now patches appearing in the solar coronal holes which indicates the solar coronal holes are dissipating and which also indicates there is a significant change occurring deep within the sun.
When the solar coronal holes in an earth facing position disappear, the Dansgaard-Oescgher cooling will abruptly start. Cooling has started on the Greenland ice sheet.
When there is in your face cooling I will present a series of articles that explain the mechanisms that completely debunk the cult of CAGW’s (IPCC)’s entire ‘scientific’ basis.
“I found the reason why the NASA CO2 satellite data is missing key months.”
So you believe Humlum’s paper provides the motivation for ignoring some OCO2 observations. Fine. But you have not shown any linkage to actual process used to process OCO2 observations. Can you provide any proof that the missing observations violated their own guidelines? Or that these guidelines explicitly and specifically favor Humlum’s theories? Please provide examples which show this bias.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/support/
Actually the simplest (most likely correct) explanation is that the simulation was produced with the LITE dataset, which is an abbreviated set of observations, which includes only observations with high quality ratings. The FULL dataset contains all the observations, good and bad, but is much more difficult to process.
https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov/#mission=OCO-2
I have noted that the OCO2 mission has generated a lot of comments, skeptical of the OCO2 team’s scientific integrity. Letting the data speak for itself, I see no direct evidence of any “hidden agenda”. So I think we should the data and findings at face value, not perfect or complete, but simply the result of scientists at work.
On the other hand, there is clearly an agenda in your comments. You believe in ‘D-O Cooling’ and therefore think all data observations must conform to your pet theory, or else it’s foul play. That is clearly a bias in your reasoning.
Come on guys. Please give these researchers the benefit of doubt. If you have specific examples of selection bias or other fakery, please provide specific examples before accusing them of dishonesty.
I am sorry, but I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. I will not convict without evidence, but neither will I assume innocence blindly. There have been too many shenanigans revealed by Clmategate, and in other situations where the cheating is so blatant (Karl et al., anyone?) that I have no longer any capacity for generosity.
The problem is that, when the system is so complex, the avenues for fudging are immense. And, while any fudging may not be initiated by the grunt at the console, at every layer the results pass through, there is increasing pressure to provide the answers desired at the top. See, e.g., the disconnect between uncertainty expressed in the IPCC lower level analyses versus the risible certainty expressed in the summaries for policy makers.
” I will not convict without evidence, but neither will I assume innocence blindly.”
That statement does not make clear what you would do if you have no evidence: convict or assume innocence”
I didn’t say to ignore evidence, quite the contrary. Only convict if evidence indicates guilt. So, same as saying “giving benefit of doubt”. I believe this is consistent with the American jurisprudence: assume innocence until proven guilty.
There is a third option: withhold judgment, and proceed cautiously.
Giving the benefit of the doubt means accepting it as true until evidence casts doubt. I do not accept it either as true or false. I am waiting to see evidence, pro or con, before I climb down from the fence.
Now you’re just splitting hairs. The phrase “benefit of doubt” per se explicitly implies that you have doubts about a case, but no hard evidence. So the fairest option is to withhold judgment until more evidence is found.
This isn’t a legal case in the US…. its a science debate. In science you ALWAYS DOUBT.
@temp
Very true in an absolute sense. But there are relative degrees of doubt, ranging from “acceptable” to “non-acceptable”. Obviously new hypotheses and theories require “acceptable” doubt, else we would never make any “progress” (sometimes backwards, we know) in science.
” Johanus
November 6, 2015 at 4:00 am ”
I completely agree they long ago coined a simple phrase for that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Global warming maybe one of the most extraordinary claims in the history of science. It affects literally every human on the planet. The evidence in support of it is however pathetic. Extreme doubt would be the lowest possible doubt any sane science would give any of the claims made in regards to global warming… sadly we lack sanity nowadays.
@ur momisugly William Astley – November 5, 2015 at 7:44 am
The OCO2 have to be looked at with the understanding of what a large portion of
the source is.
Upland topsoil, in the presence of adequate moisture, owes its richness to the amount of natural
gas which up wells through it, and the aerobic culture which consumes it.
The natural gas is created deep in the earth’s crust and rises around the earth, but the dispersion
is not even. It finds the path of least resistance and rises disproportionately. The rise along
the tectonic plate boundaries is a good example.
As the gas rises through the oceans, the methanotrophs oxidase it, and the CO2 then is read
by the satellite. When it rises through the continents, its track is marked by the very deep, rich
soil, found as an example, in the Ukraine, the mid west of the US, and over plumes of natural
gas in the Amazon.
The gas plumes in the Amazon are soo concentrated and so misunderstood, that the plots
of rich soil, which were discovered and farmed by the indigenous people are erroneously
thought to be have been created by these farmers. These plots are called Terra Preta.
The northern hemisphere is cold enough that a great portion of it is frozen in winter, slowing
or stopping the rise of natural gas. The burst of CO2 in the spring is evidence of the natural
gas rising again and the culture is consuming it, enriching the soil, and producing large
quantities of CO2 before the foliage is able to consume it. As the foliage increases, the
natural gas fertilizes growth a second time by consuming this CO2.
The lack of understanding of this process leads to many mistakes in atmospheric
science. The USEPA lists upland as a Gt. 30 carbon sink. They think that the CH4 that
is found in the soil comes from the atmosphere. It does not. Methane rises.
Another major misunderstanding of the way topsoil works is the rice paddies.
When the paddies are not flooded, the soil culture consumes most, if not all
the rising gas. When the paddies are flooded, the water forces the gas to rise
faster than it can be consumed, causing Hydrocarbon readings to skyrocket.
The un-oxidized natural gas does not show up on OCO2 readings.
But the OCO2 readings are based on the absorption at the CO2 spectral lines at 1.6 and 2.04 microns. Do your natural gases have spectra which would interfere at these wavelengths. If not I don’t see how they could possibly interact with the OCO2 measurements.
Also take note that the OCO2 was validated with ground-based sensors (TCCON) which had their spectrometers pointed at the Sun, not the Earth. So independent of soil properties. The researchers used these TCCON datasets to learn more about soil reflectance. And if I remember correctly, found that only simple adjustments were needed to calibrate the spaceborne sensors.
@ur momisugly Johanus – November 5, 2015 at 8:52 am
But, … but, … but, ….. doesn’t the earth’s surface radiate IR at the 1.6 and 2.04 micron frequencies?
So just how does the satellite sensors determine the difference between surface radiation and atmospheric CO2 radiation of those two (2) frequencies?
Is it not idiotic to assume that all IR surface radiation at the 1.6 and 2.04 micron frequencies is being intercepted, absorbed and re-emitted by atmospheric CO2 molecules?
Is it not idiotic and asinine to assume that all IR radiation at the 1.6 and 2.04 micron frequencies that is being radiated by atmospheric CO2 molecules ….. is always radiated vertically toward space (aka: the satellite sensors)?
Is it not a fact that molecules of N2, O2, H2O, CO2, etc. will absorb thermal energy from the earth’s surface via “conduction” …. and will transfer part of that thermal energy to other gas molecules in the atmosphere via “conduction” if they come in contact with each other?
And when that other molecule in the atmosphere is CO2, …. just what is the frequency that said CO2 molecule re-radiates its newly absorbed thermal energy? And if any of that “newly absorbed” re-radiated energy from said CO2 molecule is at the 1.6 and/or 2.04 micron frequency …… would it not really screw up the satellite measurements?
A curious mind would like to hear/read intelligent answers.
Samuel,
The Sun and Earth both radiate electromagnetic radiation in distinct distributions which approximate a “black body”:
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/files/earth_and_sun_emission.jpg
The Sun’s radiation is centered around 0.5 microns (‘visible light’) and the Earth’s radiation is longwave IR, centered around 10 microns, as you can see in the plot above.
Surprisingly, the Earth’s IR radiation distribution is not reflected sunlight. It is true “earthshine” from heating effect of absorbing sunlight (i.e. mostly visible). Virtually all of this IR has a wavelength greater than 4 microns. In fact this 4-micron-and-above radiation is stronger than the Sun’s own output at this wavelength.
How can that be? you say. Well, the Sun is 93 million miles away, while the Earth is zero miles away. Earthshine outshines sunshine at wavelengths greater than 4 microns.
So the IR energy absorbed at 1.5 and 2 microns detected by OCO2 represents absorbed sunshine, not absorbed earthshine. Because there is no 1.5/2 micron component of earthshine to absorb. It’s all sunlight.
Does that help?
Do any of you WUWT readers have the video editing capability to superimpose the time lapsed video showing LWIR data (and/or perhaps temperature data or temperature anomaly data) as 3D “stick” graphs onto the changing CO2 video. CO2 is supposed to be a greenhouse gas and therefore should have an immediate and direct effect on local heat retention and and an opposing effect on the radation of IR back into space. If so and if CO2 is having such a dramatic impact on surface temps, then creating these kinds of superimposed videos should show visual evidence of this correlation. The visual evidence should show the simultaneous impact of local CO2 changes to the local IR radiation back to space and either simultaneous or slightly delayed change in the local surface temp. If on the other hand there is visual evidence showing both positive AND negative correlation in equal amounts, then it could be argued that CO2 is not the magic “control knob” affecting temperature the way everone has been led to believe.
It should also be possible now to create a video of time lapsed data showing the relationship between the “greening” of the planet from season to season, and the local changes in CO2. These should directly correlate and validate the degree to which plant life is a potent CO2 sink.
Also if local temp data correlates but actually precedes the local changes in CO2, then it can be argued quite strongly that CO2 outgassing follows temp change – ie. temp change effects CO2 concentration, NOT CO2 concentration effects temp change.
What do you all think? Do we have sufficient time lapsed data to create this kind of video?
Thank you for this post, and your kind words Ric. It is nice to see rough agreement with my evaluation and the NASA animation.
@Johanus, 8:52 AM
I do not accert that my findings interfere with the OCO2 findings, only that you need
to look for the unoxidized hydrocarbons, partially shown on the maps by the methane
reading satellites.I also do not know if the satellite reads all hydrocarbons as methane
or if they do not read ethane, propane, and butane.
Most of the papers I have read which found methane in the topsoil found only the
presence of methane because the instruments they uses tested only for flammable
gas which was assumed to be methane.
The original publication of OCO2 readings comport much better with my findings.
t
Why would OCO2 have to “look for unoxidized hydrocarbons” if it is known that their spectra do not interfere with the CO2 readings?
Johanus, I said “look for the unoxidized hydrocarbons, partially shown on maps by the
METHANE READING SATELITTES.”
OK. So that is bit off-topic, since we’re discussing the mapping of CO2 by orbiting carbon observatories. 😐
Johanus, I believe explaining the original source of hydrocarbons and their subsequent
oxidation IS the subject.
Most people don’t understand that carbon is recycled deep in the earth by tectonic plate
sebduction of carbonaceous rock combining with water, iron oxide, et.al,+ heat and
pressure to create Hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons then rise to the surface, some oxidized in
volcanoes, some trapped under or in impermeable layers of sedimentary rock, as in the
Bakken or the Permenian,and a large quantity which rises through semi-permeable rock
layers, then into the soil where microbes consume them, creating the CO2 which we are
discussing today.
Discovering the source of the CO2 is the reason for OCO2′ existence. The un oxidized
hydrocarbons are read by other satellites.
Didn’t the Japanese JAXA satellite already show that the western world used more co2 than it produces over the course of a year with the opposite being true of the third world.
It is the third world who should pay climate change reparations to the first world.
The following tables and observations are based on a fao.org (farm & agricultural.org of UN) global CO2 balance Bing image. This diagram is typical of many variations.
How much carbon is there? Carbon, not CO2!
Reservoir……………………………..Gt C………%
Surface ocean………………………1,020……..2.2%
Deep Ocean……………………….38,100……81.2%
Marine Biota…………………………….3……..0.0%
Dissolved Organic Carbon……..….700………1.5%
Ocean Sediments………………….150……..0.3%
Soils…………………………………1,580……..3.4%
Vegetation…………………………….610……..1.3%
Fossil Fuel & Cement……………..4,000……..8.5%
Atmosphere…………………………..750……..1.6%
Total………………………………….46,913
Carbon moves back and forth between and among these reservoirs, the great fluxes.
Atmospheric Fluxes, Gt C/y………Source………Sink
Soils…………………………………….60
Vegetation……………………………..60…………121.3
Fires…………………………..…………1.6
Ocean Surface………………………..90…………..92
Forests………………………………………………….0.5
Fossil Fuel & Cement…………………5.5
Total………………………………..217.1………..213.8
Net………………………………………………3.3
The net of 3.3 (seen this before?) is exactly 60% of FF & C. How convenient. How dry labbed.
Now this is all carbon. Carbon is not always CO2. Carbon can be soot from fires, tail pipes, volcanoes. Carbon can be carbonates in limestone and coral. But let’s just say all of this carbon converts to CO2 at 3.67, 44/12, units of CO2 per unit of carbon. How many Gt of CO2?
Atmospheric Fluxes, Gt CO2/y…….Source……..….Sink
Soils…………………………………..220.2
Vegetation……………………………220.2……….445.171
Fires…………………………..…………5.872
Ocean Surface………………………330.3……….337.64
Forests………………………………………………….1.835
Fossil Fuel & Cement………………..20.185
Total………………………………….796.757……784.646
Net………………………………..……12.111
Now is it ppm volume or ppm gram mole? If one is to compare the number of molecules it must be CO2/atmosphere ppm gram mole, 44/28.96.
Atmospheric Fluxes, ppm/y………Source……..Sink
Soils…………………………………28.42
Vegetation…………………….…….28.42…….57.45
Fires……………………………………………..0.76
Ocean Surface…………………….42.63……43.57
Forests……………………………….…………..0.24
Fossil Fuel & Cement…………………………..2.60
Total………………………………102.83…..101.26
Net………………………………….1.56 (Let’s just blame this all on FF & C.)
Per IPCC AR5 Table 6.1 some of these sources and sinks have uncertainties of +/- 40 & 50%!! IMHO anybody who claims that out of these enormous reservoirs and fluxes they can with certainty, accuracy, specifically assign 1.56 ppm/y to FF & C is flat blowing smoke.
Arguing the validity and meaning of all these numbers is moot since they were all pulled out of some academic’s hiney!