Satelites measure atmospheric CO2 levels.

[Derek]

Hi All,
You may or may not have seen this.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/29/c ... published/
- Comments thread - AIRS Team satellite CO2 paper published

The letter is here,
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0817/2008GL035022/
- Satellite remote sounding of mid-tropospheric CO2

M. T. Chahine and Luke Chen
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California, USA

Paul Dimotakis
California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California, USA

Xun Jiang, Qinbin Li, Edward T. Olsen, and Thomas Pagano
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California, USA

James Randerson
Department of Earth System Science, University of California,
Irvine, California, USA

Yuk L. Yung
California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California, USA

Excerpted graphic,



Satelite measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels, this SHOULD be interesting.
The evenly mixed CO2 assumption springs to mind for instance..
What, data from 2003.....

I seem to recollect that this was mentioned elsewhere some time ago, and maybe here as well, (I could of missed it).
I feel this is going to be significant.
Why. Well for several reasons, most importantly though what has always been missing in debates about atmospheric CO2 levels are illustrations of what is actually happening on a wide scale, rather than just a couple of pin point measurements with dodgy (at best) assumptions, ie Mauna Loa and South Pole.
If, and it is a big if, the satelite measurements are accurate, and reliable, then a global picture of CO2 levels over longitude, latitude, altitude, season, and day and night, to name just some, will or should be soon avaliable.

It may well become an extremely hot issue this satelite measurements of atmos. CO2 levels as it could well illustrate beyond doubt many things.
(I also remember some concerns about selected hieghts of measurements rather than a complete 3D depth approach..)
I suspect that it will illustrate nature's dominance in CO2 levels and distributions, and that levels are beginning to plateau, if not actually fall (because of cooler oceans).

To start things off, I'll not stand on the fence.
Science rarely moves on from a consensus hypothesis untill the position is plainly ridiculous.
Satelite measurements will change the idea man's contributions to global CO2 levels are dominant,
from plainly rediculous to null and void.

[Stephen Wilde]

Not sure if it was here or not but I did recently suggest doubts about the 'well mixed' issue and got trounced for my pains. I decided to keep quiet until the results were available.

Lower concentrations in some areas is important because it makes the CO2 effect 'leaky' allowing atmospheric windows for energy to escape faster.

Likewise variable concentrations geographically and 3 dimensionally can give a very different pattern of change to a pin point observation at a single level in the atmosphere.

Additionally the same lack of uniformity would exist for all GHG's so that current assumptions about the overall effect globally will have to be revisited.

It will emphasise my view that the oceans via The Hot Water Bottle Effect provide the main atmospheric global temperature control and not GHG's at all.

Intersesting to see that most CO2 shows no obvious link to industrialised areas.

[Stephen Wilde]

Peter,

My various articles already make those points perfectly clearly.

I see no reason to deny the existence of a trivial effect from human CO2. That is the only point on which we differ.

The main point of my articles is that the effect of human CO2 (if any, after various negative feedbacks) is so trivial as to be vanishingly small in the real world.

New information as it comes to light, is heading in that direction.

[questioner]

Hi All,
You may or may not have seen this.




Satelite measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels, this SHOULD be interesting.
The evenly mixed CO2 assumption springs to mind for instance..
What, data from 2003.....

I seem to recollect that this was mentioned elsewhere some time ago, and maybe here as well, (I could of missed it).
I feel this is going to be significant.
Why. Well for several reasons, most importantly though what has always been missing in debates about atmospheric CO2 levels are illustrations of what is actually happening on a wide scale, rather than just a couple of pin point measurements with dodgy (at best) assumptions, ie Mauna Loa and South Pole.
If, and it is a big if, the satelite measurements are accurate, and reliable, then a global picture of CO2 levels over longitude, latitude, altitude, season, and day and night, to name just some, will or should be soon avaliable.

It may well become an extremely hot issue this satelite measurements of atmos. CO2 levels as it could well illustrate beyond doubt many things.
(I also remember some concerns about selected hieghts of measurements rather than a complete 3D depth approach..)
I suspect that it will illustrate nature's dominance in CO2 levels and distributions, and that levels are beginning to plateau, if not actually fall (because of cooler oceans).

To start things off, I'll not stand on the fence.
Science rarely moves on from a consensus hypothesis untill the position is plainly ridiculous.
Satelite measurements will change the idea man's contributions to global CO2 levels are dominant,
from plainly rediculous to null and void.

Thanks for calling our attention to this paper.

It is indeed interesting. The maps you show are for July.

The measured AIRS maps show CO2 hot spots. These hot spots appear at and downwind from the big population centers. This shows how the distribution of CO2 emitted from these population centers is occurring as a result of the prevailing winds. In the northern hemisphere in July, the oceans are warmer and absorb less CO2, while the vegetation is growing and absorbs more CO2. You can see the deep blue at the south pole region where the cold oceans are absorbing the CO2.

It appears that the model data shows a much flatter distribution of CO2 than the data.
The GEOS chem seems to be the modelled CO2 which is shown as well mixed.
If you look at the Mauna Loa, South Pole and Barrow Alaska locations on the AIRS and GEOSCHEM maps you would see pretty good agreement at those locations.

The significance for global temperature modeling would not appear to be large, because a difference of 10ppM in CO2 is not going to affect the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" very much, based on the figures that the IPCC has put out, which involve the temperature change for doubling of CO2 concentration. The maps do show that the emissions of CO2, as evidenced by the higher concentrations are from anthropogenic sources.

[Stephen Wilde]

I don't think the high concentrations are downwind of the main population centres unless the display is wrongly calibrated.

Each red area is too far South hence my comment in my previous post about the industrial Centres not being involved.

More likely the red areas are downwind of oceanic outgassing areas as follows:

1) In South America it is downwind of the Southern Pacific Ocean albeit over land which is quite sparsely populated.

2) The area over the Sourthern US is downwind of the Equatorial Pacific and not so many of the US citizens or industries are in that South western part of the US.

3) The other red area in the Americas is East of the Gulf of Mexico which is a very warm area of ocean which adds to Pacific influences coming across the narrow 'tail' of N America..

4) The red area over N Africa and the Middle East is downwind of the Central Atlantic and not downwind of the populated industrial areas of Northern Europe. The hot Mediterranean and Black Sea in July have a clear influence.

5) The red areas in the East Pacific are downwind of the Indian Ocean and the Malaysian Archipelago. There is little CO2 downwind of the Chinese industrial areas. Note that winds flow generally west to east and from equator to pole so we should be looking at sources south west of the red areas not west or north west of them.

Overall a pretty persuasive indication that the source is outgassing from solar warming of the oceans as modulated by oceanic oscillations.

Note the clear sign of substantial absorption in the blue oceanic areas all round Antarctica.

A whole new theory of the atmospheric CO2 cycle is now required. Mostly, CO2 is released by warm water and absorbed by cold water on a rapid and constantly changing basis. The human effect is likely to be meaningless once the effect of warming or cooling oceans has been filtered out.

Watching the effects of seasonal changes and especially ocean surface temperature changes will be very instructive

[questioner]

I don't think the high concentrations are downwind of the main population centres unless the display is wrongly calibrated.

Each red area is too far South hence my comment in my previous post about the industrial Centres not being involved.

More likely the red areas are downwind of oceanic outgassing areas as follows:

1) In South America it is downwind of the Southern Pacific Ocean albeit over land which is quite sparsely populated.

2) The area over the Sourthern US is downwind of the Equatorial Pacific and not so many of the US citizens or industries are in that South western part of the US.

3) The other red area in the Americas is East of the Gulf of Mexico which is a very warm area of ocean which adds to Pacific influences coming across the Panama isthmus.

4) The red area over N Africa and the Middle East is downwind of the Central Atlantic and not over the populated industrial areas of Northern Europe.

5) The red areas in the East Pacific are downwind of the Indian Ocean and the Malaysian Archipelago. There is little CO2 over the Chinese industrial areas.

Overall a pretty persuasive indication that the source is outgassing from solar warming of the oceans as modulated by oceanic oscillations.

Note the clear sign of substantial absorption in the blue oceanic areas all round Antarctica.

A whole new theory of the atmospheric CO2 cycle is now required. Mostly, CO2 is released by warm water and absorbed by cold water on a daily basis. The human effect is likely to be meaningless once the effect of warming or cooling oceans has been filtered out.

Some of what you say may be correct. Both natural sources of CO2 and anthropogenic ones exist.
The scientists who are studying this do not seem to share your point of view.Here is what they say:

9) We note also that the AIRS retrieved mid-tropospheric CO2 mixing ratios exhibit strong latitudinal and longitudinal gradients around 45 N, the location of the northern hemisphere (NH) mid-latitude jet stream. The distributions of the NCEP2 500 hPa geopotential heights shown in Figure 3 and the 500 hPa NCEP2 zonal winds suggest that the reduced concentrations of CO2 north of the northern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream are due to the combination of surface uptake by vegetation and vertical redistribution of air with low CO2 concentrations from the stratosphere. The relatively high concentrations at 30 N to 40 N, south of the jet stream, correspond to the so-called NH mid-latitudes pollution belt [Zhang et al., 2006]. In particular, the Southwest U.S. is affected by seasonal drought, which leads to vegetation stress and subsequently reduced photosynthesis. The unfavorable growing condition and emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion lead to enhancements of CO2 across the Southwest U.S. Spatial gradients of 2–3 ppmv are apparent in the AIRS retrievals over the continental U.S.


[10] Over the western North Atlantic the higher CO2 likely reflects northeastward transport of emissions from the southeast U.S. by warm conveyor belts, a dominant transport pathway for lifting pollution from surface into the middle and upper troposphere [Stohl et al., 2002]. During the summer, the middle and upper troposphere over the Mediterranean is dubbed the ‘global air pollution crossroads’ with dominant influences from Asia and North America [Lelieveld et al., 2002]. The higher CO2 concentration over that region is a clear indication of long-range transport from North America to the west and from Asia to the south. Li et al. [2001] pointed out that transport of South Asia pollution via the tropical easterly jet leads to an ozone maximum in the middle troposphere over the Middle East. This long-range transport likely contributes to the high CO2 concentrations over the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Continental outflow is also evident off the coast of East Asia.

The scientists make no mention of out-gassing from the oceans in their discussion of the northern hemisphere CO2.
The sources they list are all on land. They refer to fossil fuel emissions and continental pollution. Since the AIRS maps show measurements of the upper troposphere and not the surface, the location of the hot spots are apparently displaced because the CO2 does not rise directly vertically in the areas where it is produced.

[Stephen Wilde]

Well, if they ignore natural influences in favour of entirely anthropogenic influences I would say that that is unwise.

I'm sure that more considered and patient analysis and interpretation will resolve the point.

Seeing the same display at the peak of the S. Hemisphere summer and the depths of our winter will help to separate the natural and anthropogenic components.

I've made a few adjustments to my previous post. It was initially done in a bit of a rush and contained some inaccuracies although the general gist remains.

[Derek]

Hi All,
may I also throw into the mix, (I'm sure many here have been aware of this for sometime)

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ ... ittal.html
- THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

I did a laymans version, (it's a lot shorter...)

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/m ... topic&t=94
- The Solubility pump. - A layman's (simple) overview.

Given the paper being discussed here and the Solubility pump,
you may see how my "interest" in Mauna Loa was sporned.

To me the satelites may well IF the data is reliable, show
how the natural processes AGW so tries to ignore all but dwarf human influences,
or not as the case may be.
In terms of longitude, latitude, season, and day and night, the satelites promise much insight into
what so far has merely been guessed at or assumed mostly.
Interesting times.

I suspect however the delayed release of the data may well leave room for concern,
regarding what the data shows..

Calling the satelite equivalent of Steve McIntyre.......

[questioner]

Derek,
I read through all of the graphs and regression analysis. I can see your point. There is a physical mechanism by which warm ocean water will contribute CO2 to the atmosphere and colder ocean water will take it up. So if a lot of warm water comes to the surface of the oceans, like in El Nino events, it will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than if we had a La Nina event.

But the ocean temperatures should not have much effect on the amount of CO2 emitted by human activities. Man burns fossil fuel steadily, pretty much independent of the temperatures of the oceans.

So there are 2 things going on here, anthropogenic emissions and natural process which can add or subtract CO2 from the atmosphere.


The time dependence of the absorption, and therefore the time dependence of the increase in CO2, will be sensitive to the state of the ENSO and other ocean temperature oscillations. The human emissions will have a much flatter time dependence because in the short term it doesn't vary as much. So the short term time dependence will be predicted by the state of the oceans, but that does not imply mean that in the long run, natural processes are responsible for the increase in CO2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the following facts are correct:
1)The accepted historical data shows CO2 increased from about 280 to 380 ppM since the industrial revolution after being stable at or below 280 ppM for 100's of thousands of years.
2)An accounting of total human emissions shows that on balance the natural processes have absorbed and amount of CO2 equal to about 1/2 of the amount of CO2 emitted by human emissions.

Given these facts, If natural processes have absorbed CO2 over the long term explain how natural processes can be held responsible for increases in CO2 concentration?

Suppose fossil fuel emissions were shut down totally. Do you believe that CO2 would in the atmosphere would continue to increase?

[Derek]

I think you have missed the point re the global Thermohaline circulation (THC), and oceanic cycles, phases, gyras and currents, that are very little understood at present.
Over many timescales they must play a significant role (ie the natural variations, when combined with solar influences) that is niether understood or quantified to any reasonable level at present.
The THC is thought by many to possibly work on timescales of upto 1,000 years, some say more, some say less,
ie 800 years. - Would that explain the often quoted 800 CO2 lag to temperature...Maybe at least partially.
Of course this can just be ignored (and thus you'd be ignoring the solubility pump also) but that would appear rather blinkered to me.
Maybe reading the above solubility pump links might be a good idea.

Oceans are generally thought to roughly absorb and de-gass about 100 giga tonnes anually.
The actual amount varies quite considerably according to solar and oceanic influences
(I've read various sources suggesting between 85 to 115 gigatonnes annually - differences of upto 10 to 15 giga tonnes annually being more common.
Man emmits in total 7 to 8 giga tonnes annually....),
which means they can obviously dwarf human emmisssions alone.
That's before we consider plants....or many, many other natural sinks and sources that vary independently of man's activities.

BTW, the "accepted" pre-industrial level of CO2 is by no means set in stone, many believe it could of been nearer 330 ppm,
certainly the data used to produce the 285 figure so often quoted, was rather selective...
(Or rather deliberately ommitted larger or other measurements that did not fit the "required" or pre concieved idea.)
But that is another issue, suffice it to say the pre industrial figure of 285 ppm is not neccesarily correct,
it could well of been 330 ppm ish...

The other often skipped over fact is that CO2 is very soluble in water, so, ice cores (especially partially melted ones...) can produce very peculiar readings of past CO2 concentrations.
In short, due to solubility alone, historical CO2 levels from ice cores are not very reliable.

Finally,

Suppose fossil fuel emissions were shut down totally. Do you believe that CO2 would in the atmosphere would continue to increase?

I suggest the levels of CO2 are already falling as the oceans begin to cool.
The recent warm years meant the oceans warmed and de-gassed more, hence (mainly) the CO2 levels have risen.
Depending on future ocean temperatures which look to be cooling, because of reduced soalr activity,
(- ie no sun spots, solar cycle 23 still not over yet, some say another 6 months or more to go. Brrrr.)
then if the oceans continue to cool they will absorb more CO2, and emmit less.
On the other hand an increase in the "4th class" of volcanoes activity could warm oceans enough to offset this,
but that it is not likely.
(Although stranger things have happened at sea I've been told.)

So the net overal level of atmospheric CO2 (ppm) will continue to fall (probably) or possibly stabilise, regardless of man's activities.
Plants though may take up less CO2, as they grow less in a cooler world, so reducing a natural sink,
how much, I do not know. Will this offset the reduced natural oceanic emmissions,
I do not know, and I also suspect no one else does.

CO2 levels will however not continue to rise as they have been doing,
the dominant (at least recently) natural source (warming oceans) has been "turned down" by the recent cooling the planet is experiencing.
We are dwarfed by nature, in it's many, many guises.