Study Develops More Accurate CO2 Data

Purdue University press release: - A new, high- resolution interactive map of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has found that the emissions aren't all where we thought.

"For example, we've been attributing too many emissions to the northeastern United States, and it's looking like the southeastern U.S. is a much larger source than we had estimated previously.

"When you compare the old inventories to Vulcan, the new data show atmospheric CO2 differences that are as large as five parts per million in some U.S. regions in the late winter. The levels in the global atmosphere only rise one and a half part per million every year, so this is the equivalent of three years of global emissions in the atmosphere that isn't where we thought it was. This will be important for policy-makers and is enormous from a scientific point of view. It's shocking."

-- Kevin Gurney, Project leader and assistant professor of earth and atmospheric science at Purdue University.

The maps and system, called Vulcan, show CO2 emissions at more than 100 times more detail than was available before. Until now, data on carbon dioxide emissions were reported, in the best cases, monthly at the level of an entire state. The Vulcan model examines CO2 emissions at local levels on an hourly basis.

It is claimed that carbon dioxide is the most important human-produced gas contributing to global climate change. The United States accounts for about 25 percent of global CO2 emissions.

Researchers say the maps also are more accurate than previous data because they are based on greenhouse gas emissions instead of estimates based on population in areas of the United States.

A preliminary analysis of the Vulcan data suggests that previous maps of U.S. fossil fuel emissions were inadequate for current scientific and policy-making needs, Gurney says.

The map above shows where CO2 is being emitted in the continental United States in 10-kilometer grids and combines data from sources including factories, automobiles on highways and power plants. The map offers more than 100 times the detail of previous inventories of carbon dioxide. The image displays metric tons of carbon per year per grid in a logarithmic base-10 scale. (Purdue University image/Kevin Gurney)

To create the Vulcan maps, the research team developed a method to extract the CO2 information by transforming data on local air pollution, such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, which are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and other governmental agencies.

"The high-resolution map from Vulcan also provides a picture of emission sources in a way that the public and policy-makers can understand, which may be helpful in discussing what we will do about the climate problem,"

-- James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

The three-year Vulcon Project, funded by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy under the North American Carbon Program, involved researchers from Purdue University, Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with the goal of quantifing North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions at space and time scales much finer than has been achieved in the past. The purpose is to aid in quantification of the North American carbon budget and to support inverse estimation of carbon sources and sinks. . . . more here and here

I am a little late in publishing this, but I thought it was important enough to publish now, so that it could be read by those that hadn't seen it and it belongs in my archives. I believe in climate change and the fact that CO2 contributes to it, I am just not sure how much of climate change is caused by CO2. It is interesting to me that the two areas that I have lived, in Southeastern Wisconsin and Southeastern New Hampshire are both in areas of very high CO2 emissions.

Comments

[ChipSeal]

Wow! That is some trick! Distinguishing between natural CO2 "fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions"!

So by some voodoo method of extrapolation from carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, (Which have no natural source, right?) they can make this distinction!

Well, that certainly answers why they found such high concentrations of "fossil fuel CO2" along the Nevada side of the California Nevada border! Funny how in the wilderness of Idaho and Wyoming levels of 1.89 to 2.91 are recorded. Any explanations for that?

The map is spurious, the methodology is obviously flawed, and the idea of distinguishing "fossil fuel CO2" from any other CO2 is preposterous!

[NanoEC]

yeah, that Hansen. What a quack. I can't believe a synopsis didn't include a full explanation of the experimental method. Definitely Voodoo. Regarding the wilderness levels...its clearly stated that units are logarithmic and over a 10 km grid during a year timespan. These remote areas have logging or mining activities was well as highways & flight paths. Data is from satellites so you have residents, commercial business, & industry as well as ground, water, & air traffic all being imaged and contributing to the total with the wilderness areas coming in ~ 3-4 orders of magnitude lower than population centers (red). I don't think that is totally unreasonable.

[Clee]

The climate scientists say they can distinguish whether CO2 comes from fossil fuel or from recently grown biomass because they have different proportions of carbon isotopes Carbon-12, Carbon-13, Carbon-14. Pretty neat trick. I don't pretend to understand it myself.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[Kit P]

For the record, they (Vulcan project) did not measure ghg levels. It is a computer generated model. What is the purpose of this model.

“provides a picture of emission sources in a way that the public and policy-makers can understand, which may be helpful in discussing what we will do about the climate problem”

So Dr Hansen is either stupid or lying. If you do not already know that burning fossil fuels creates ghg, I am think that this model will not help you understand that. This model provides no useful or new information.

As Clee pointed out, we already know from carbon dating that much of the increase ghg is from fossil fuels. Isotopes of carbon are produced by interaction high in the atmosphere with cosmic rays. Since these isotopes have different half lives, we can measure how long ago something died by the ratio isotopes.

The reason for the model is to support Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO).

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/

“These measurements will be combined with data from the ground-based network to provide scientists with the information that they will need to better understand the processes that regulate atmospheric CO2 and its role in the carbon cycle.”

Climate scientist like Dr Hansen do not want to discuss how ignorant they are of the environment. It would look stupid to call skeptics of AGW deniers at the same time you were admitting the degree of your cluelessness. For a long time I was confused about the junk science coming out of NASA. Outrageous fear monger in preliminary press releases follow by release of less alarming reports. In the US Congress, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

While I am all for spending large sums of money to study the climate, Dr Hansen should not bite the hand that feeds him. We should not forget we have the luxury to pay useless folks like Dr Hansen because of the robust US economy driven by burning fossil fuel.

“wilderness of Idaho”

Can we manage our semi-arid forest and animal waste better? Yes! Will this result in ghg reductions? Yes! Does Dr Hansen agree with this approach? Yes!

Here is what bothers me about AGW and so many environmental issues, they transcend politics. For more than 15 years, I have working on solutions to environmental issues especially AGW. Every bit of environmental legislation that Clinton started Bush finished. It took some compromises on both sides but we are moving forward. Where does Dr Hansen stand now? He is a vocal critic of the Bush Administration while failing talking about all the progress we are making.

[Carl Hage]

The commentary above misses the purpose of this project-- no it does not try to distinguish between fossil and natural CO2. The purpose is to form a high-accuracy 3D+time accounting of fossil carbon emissions.

To find "natural" CO2, you measure the 3D+time profile of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (with an upcoming satellite), then subtract out the calculated fossil contribution. Besides planning for reductions in fossil CO2, the model allows detailed studies of the natural CO2 cycles by enabling the fossil contribution to be separated from the measured totals.

The EIA (Energy Information Administration) keeps tabs on energy usage mainly for economic purposes, so we have totals for coal, oil, and gas extraction, consumption, and import/export. Consumption (emission) is summaried by general area, but not by detailed geography, time of day, or elevation and wind movement.

This study separated the known point sources (power plants, cement plants, etc.), area sources from houses, etc, and roadways (from maps). Once you figure where, then you need to figure when. Hourly electric consumption can estimate power plant emissions by hour/season, for example. For roadways, measuring hourly/seasonal NOx, etc., enables calibration of the time and area emissions (what would the relative emissions be for I-80 at noon in Nevada, vs I-5 in LA at 8am, for example).

Once there is a good 2D accounting of emissions vs time, then add in atmospheric models to compute dispersion through the air, and you get this 3D model.

The researchers were able to cross-check the model with EIA and EPA measurements (including NOx, etc.) to assess the data quality.

The satellite measures CO2 concentrations as a profile of elevation, over the scanned area, e.g. the wilderness of Idaho and Wyoming. With a good model of fossil CO2, the satellite can then be used to study natural CO2.

This study only applies to the US, so fossil CO2 generated in Asia, etc. is not included. Perhaps the distance means the area or time-of-day detail won't matter.

It seems like a similar kind of model would be useful (detailed 3D+time) to account for calculated CO2 update/emissions based on studies of grassland, farms, etc. and correlate with satelitte measurements.

[Global Warming Skeptic]

This CO2 is bad agument is amazing. In grade school we all learned that plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. I fail to see how rising CO2 levels are going to destroy the planet.

[Benjamin Cole]

Plant lots of plants. Burn them in steam turbines, generate electricity. Go to PHEVs. Sequester CO2 from steam turbines. Problem solved. Next Problem.

[Bob Wallace]

[i]This CO2 is bad agument is amazing. In grade school we all learned that plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. I fail to see how rising CO2 levels are going to destroy the planet.[/i]

Here's a nice, simple explanation.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html

"(D)estroy the planet" is a bit strong.

Earth will persist.

Life will just get very uncomfortable for those who live on it.

Think about what life would be like were our hurricanes (they happen all around the globe) were to become significantly stronger.

Think about what would happen if many of our major cities were to find themselves below sea level. (New Orleans type levees anyone?)

Think about what would happen if vast parts of our agricultural real estate became too dry to farm.

The planet and cockroaches will get on with their lives. We humans could be shooting ourselves in the foot unless we figure out some solutions.

[bigTom]

Another way to think about the CO2 is good/necessary to life argument: Water is necessary to life, but you can kill yourself by drinking too much. Likewise Oxygen in too high a concentration is a problem, thats why deep sea divers don't simply use compressed air.

[wray]

"This CO2 is bad agument is amazing. In grade school we all learned that plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. I fail to see how rising CO2 levels are going to destroy the planet."

1) In grade school they probably didn't cover large scale deforestation and theories around reduced CO2 conversion capacity of the oceans as increased carbon load causes pH to drop.
2) Whether the increase in CO2 is natural or manmade it is not going to destroy the planet, it is going to make it inhospitable (potentially uninhabitable) to man. The earth will remain and some other organism will take our place, and carbon levels will likely return to pre-industrial revolution levels.

If the potential extinction of mankind does not bother you why even take part in the debate; because in reality we are not talking about saving the planet we are talking about saving our species?

[Kit P]

Considering the intelligence that thinks up remarks like wray's, I am sure that some will not adapt to change. Of course it is the ability to adapt to change is why many species survive. Considering that our species survived several periods of glaciation and interglacial periods hunting with sharps sticks, the reality is that human are very good at adapting.

[wray]

Kit since we share the same genetic make-up I doubt that you or I are significantly better or worse equipped to adapt to what is ahead than any poster on this board.

Since you appear to be claiming superior intellect, please share your insight into the point in human history where there was an equal population load burning fossil fuels and depleting CO2 sequestering resources at today's rate in combination with whatever natural cycles are taking place?

My point was that we do need to be resourceful and take action now, not put our heads in the sand and think that plants are going to suck up the increasing CO2 all the while mankind is clear cutting and paving the planet and acidifying the seas. Like it or not the earth doesn't give a crap whether it is covered with slime algae or stick wielding primates, dominate life forms come and go and the earth finds a new equilibrium point. You have evidence of something different?

[Al Fin]

Yes, and high CO2 will acidify the oceans and destroy phytoplankton and corals and kill the ocean itself.

Unless Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez is right when she says that "doing better experiments is likely to reveal more of reality than doing phony experiments." (paraphrased)

Of course if you add concentrated HCl to living corals and phytoplankton you are going to kill them!

Climate hysteria is contagious. You have to be exceptionally smart to have a chance to ever recover.

[wray]

NIce link Al Fin thanks

[bob]

"This CO2 is bad agument is amazing. In grade school we all learned that plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. I fail to see how rising CO2 levels are going to destroy the planet."

"Plant lots of plants. Burn them in steam turbines, generate electricity. Go to PHEVs. Sequester CO2 from steam turbines. Problem solved. Next Problem."

What's more amazing is that you people apparently think scientists have never considered these ideas, and that you're some sort of singular genius who will raise their collective consciousness and solve the world's problems. You're almost as bad as the creationists. Almost.

Sequester CO2? Where? How? Regardless of your particular answer, it will take energy ... which produces CO2 when its generated! Whoops. Guess they didn't project that far down the line in grade school.

Plant and burn lots of plants? Well, that would be carbon neutral ... until you consider the energy it takes to transport, tend, and fertilize plants. Also, have fun dealing with the non-CO2 combustion products (sulfur compounds, especially), which will take more energy (=CO2) to deal with.

Actually, go ahead and ignore this post. You're right, any third grader could solve these problems. Thanks for showing us that, we were lost without you.

[Canucklehead]

...Listen to Kit...

Wray, how are clouds incorporated into the various models? What is a cloud's effect on global warming? Will the haze moderate the planet and the only people upset are those who can't get a natural sun tan?

Global warming is an issue that is all about funding allocations for science. It is very similar to the old eugenics rage that surfaced in the 1920's and 1930's.

[Bob Wallace]

C-head,

Are you suggesting that climate researchers don't include clouds/water vapor in their models?

Or you simply summarizing the data to date?

That the role of clouds is not completely understood yet. That they can both reflect heat back out of the atmosphere and trap heat into the atmosphere.

Or as bob asks another poster - do you think scientists are stupid?

[Canucklehead]

If you google the impact of water on global warming, you will find many issues that are not completely understood or generally accepted. Some of these relate to the role of the oceans (through their temperature) regulating carbon dioxide.

...the research team developed a method to extract the CO2 information by transforming data on local air pollution, such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, which are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and other governmental agencies...

Bob, this is energy-eugenics. This approach smacks of the ole' Kevin Bacon degrees of freedom argument. Who is to say the EPA and DOE sensor grids are robust and accurate? Tracking and measuring a political hot potato are two entirely different things. Any errors found in this methodological approach can be chalked up to "background CO2 levels".

Put on your science cap for a moment and think of things that use this research. Other than a monitoring scheme for taxation/penalty purposes, what use is this approach with an undisclosed methodology?

Would this system accurately measure a hydroelectric project's impact throughout it's life? Do the changing seasons impact the findings of this methodolgy?

In answering your question, sometimes some scientists are stupid...

[bob]

So, we're supposed to trust your opinion that scientists are stupid as you compare global warming to eugenics and allude to unspecified conspiracy theories? I'm going to go ahead and trust the scientists, thanks.

[Bob Wallace]

Are you saying that because science has yet to tuck in all the small pieces that the study of climate science is bogus?

Are you saying that eugenics was not a valid topic for scientific investigation?

Do you really think that large groups of scientists conspire to create fields of inquiry which they somehow "know" to be bogus simply so they can get their hands on research money to spend?

Do you realize that you can find out what that "undisclosed methodology" is by simply reading the methodology section of research papers?

--

(Are you concerned about black helicopters and secret codes on stop signs? ;o)

(I will agree that one would be cautious in their use of EPA/DOE information released in the last 7 or 8 years. Far too often it's not the scientists who have been telling us what the science says.)

[Kit P]

“do you think scientists are stupid?”

Some are not very honest (or the journalists who write the stories) allowing those who lack a questing attitude and a high school chemistry class to be duped.

Wray wrote, “acidifying the seas”

Al fin provided a link. I think his remarks were 'tongue in cheek' but let me provide some quotes and then discuss them.

“resulting in a drop in pH levels and ocean acidification”

and

“says that the study represents "good news and a rarity in the often sobering discussions" about the challenges to marine organisms by ocean acidification. "Nature is full of surprises," he adds.”

So what is really happening. The measured alkalinity of the ocean has deceases 0.01 pH units. I looked up in my graduate level environmental chemistry text the chapter on water with a basic pH or a pH greater than 7. The correct terminally is alkalinity.

So then why would anyone use 'ocean acidification' to describe an insignificant decrease in alkalinity. It is simply dishonest scare mongering. That is how journalist Phil Berardelli makes a living.

It is a rarity that good news is reported. However good news about the environment is not a rarity.

[bob]

Holy semantics, batman! Why would anyone use the term ocean acidification? Uh, because if the pH keeps dropping your "graduate level environmental chemistry text" (oooooh, aaaaah) will tell you to call it an acid. This is a downright pathetic straw for even you to grasp at.

I also like how you called 0.01 pH units insignificant. In a test tube, yes that's pretty small. In the ocean, that's an astronomical amount of extra H+ ions. Changing the pH from 7.01 to 7 gives you about 2.28 nM more free [H+]. Multiply that by the volume of the ocean, and by my calculation that's around 3 teramols (3*10^12 mols) of extra hydrogen ions. Insignificant my ass.

You are completely unbelievable.

[Al Fin]

Blind faith and blind skepticism are both unfortunate traits.

A commenter above seemed to imply that scientists are not stupid. That is wrong. Scientists are indeed stupid, in the same ways that other people are stupid. They focus on certain issues at the expense of a wider perspective, they wear ideological blinders, and they jump to conclusions ahead of the evidence. They let their personal well-being influence their judgment. Just like normal people everywhere.

Don't put your faith in someone just because they wear a label "scientist." If you don't have ways to verify or falsify what someone says, you are at a loss. Better to stay on the sidelines in that situation.

[Cyril R.]

A commenter above seemed to imply that scientists are not stupid. That is wrong. Scientists are indeed stupid, in the same ways that other people are stupid. They focus on certain issues at the expense of a wider perspective

No, that's what blog-village-idiots like you make of it. Most scientists are rational and modest. It's the global warming denialists that are arrogant non-sequiturists.

Al Fin, most of your last posts on this blog were acts of delusional propaganda. You have your own blogs. Go spit your venom there.

[Kit P]

Al Fin, I will take stupid over very clever lies any day. The purpose of the lie is to manipulate folks like Bob and wray who do not understand chemistry. The best I can tell is that the scientist in your link is both honest and smart. Blame the journalist for calling a base an acid.

So what is the main point of this example. Increase CO2 and organism that like to eat CO2 will grow faster eating up the CO2 removing faster.

So what is the environmental impact of a 25% increase in CO2? It is too small to measure. The ocean is alkaline. The reason is all the minerals that are dissolved in the ocean. The ocean will stay alkaline because CO2 produces a weak acid and is not significant in the system.

It is also not a matter of semantics to talk about the basicity of something that has a pH of 8.1 since hydroxide ions (OH−) is predominate. Bob should keep in mind that pH is a negative log scale. A point .01 change is less significant at 7.0.

The reason scientist use specific terms is to communicate. In 1968 I was a chemistry major at Purdue taking their hardest chemistry class. I got an 'A'. Before I discussed alkalinity, I checked a reference. So why would any scientist discuss 'ocean acidification'? Bob they are lying and you are wrong. The correct and accurate description is less alkaline. It is not becoming more acidic.

Okay then, what if the pH of the ocean was 6.00 and became more acidic at 5.99. I would still not be concerned. Environmental systems are robust and complex capable of adapting to slow change and rapid change like summer and winter.