NASA Launching Satellite To Track Carbon 190
An anonymous reader writes A NASA satellite being prepared for launch early on Tuesday is expected to reveal details about where carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas tied to climate change, is being released into Earth's atmosphere on a global scale. From the article: "The $468 million mission is designed to study the main driver of climate change emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes. Some of the carbon dioxide is sucked up by trees and oceans, and the rest is lofted into the atmosphere, trapping the sun's heat and warming the planet. But atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons and in different regions of the Earth. The natural and human activities that cause the changes are complicated. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2 for short, will be able to take an ultra-detailed look at most of the Earth's surface to identify places responsible for producing or absorbing the greenhouse gas."
Unsurprising results? (Score:2)
Can we have a better summary?
Re:Unsurprising results? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unsurprising results? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article, it seems like there's a couple of reasons:
- Identify areas that are actively absorbing CO2 emissions. This is important because we can use it to figure out what the best way to naturally absorb CO2 is for use in things like city planning. For instance, we know that forests and the ocean absorb CO2, but we probably don't know which plants are the most efficient at doing so. If we find out which are the most efficient, they could probably be used in "green roof" projects in cities and in urban planning to alleviate CO2 output from cars.
- Study the difference in natural CO2 emissions (ie; not from burning fossil fuels) through the seasons, presumably to better identify man-made CO2 emissions.
- Find out what happens to the CO2 we emit once it reaches the atmosphere. Obviously, there Is always going to be CO2 in the atmosphere, but where it is and how it moves is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, we know that forests and the ocean absorb CO2, but we probably don't know which plants are the most efficient at doing so.
I hate to break it to you but we do know what plants are the most efficient. Hemp sequesters 22 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. It is one of the top plants for sequestering CO2. I would also note that if you overlay the years that HEMP was produced as a cash crop in the US with the rise and fall of CO2 you will find they line up, including the increased production during WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
That right, nobody burns hemp. Marijuana yes, but industrial hemp is no good for smoking.
Instead you make oil from the seeds that you can use for cooking and can even turn into biodiesel.
You can make paper, cloth, shoes, rope, etc, etc, etc from the plant locking up the carbon and making it into useful products.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, I dont even smoke the stuff and I was pointing out industrial Hemp.
I also do not believe that it is right to ban a plant because some people smoke it. It is their life, their body, and their choice. Ignoring the science behind the plant is just stupid. I know it is as political as AGW but lets look at the real science and leave the religion out of it.
Re: (Score:1)
CO2, a greenhouse gas, is tied to climate change but is also expected and always-present part of our atmosphere. Why do we need satellite to know this?
Can we have a better summary?
Why do we need this?
Because our climate models really aren't that good.
There, I said it.
And it's true - climate models have pretty much completely overpredicted increases in temperature over the past decade or so.
Getting better data will lead to better models which will lead to better predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The inconsistency between observed
and simulated global warming is even more
striking for temperature trends computed
over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).
For this period, the observed trend of
0.05 ± 0.08 C per decade is more than four
times smaller than the average simulated
trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 C per decade
Published paper "Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years" Published in
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2013
Re:Unsurprising results? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly I am glad to see someone actually doing some real research on the carbon cycle so we can understand the real issues and plan accordingly.
As opposed to what usually goes on where someone fancies up a computer model based on thirty year old assumptions backed up with shitty data from terrestrial monitoring stations down wind of localized heat sources and carbon emitters. Finally using their 'results' to push some political agenda and grab some more grant money.
This is a good thing it will put some ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read your sentence couple more times and the light bulb might actually go off.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2, a greenhouse gas, is tied to climate change but is also expected and always-present part of our atmosphere. Why do we need satellite to know this?
That's generally what science does. Get the big picture first then start digging for the details. This is digging for the details.
Scale (Score:2)
"carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas tied to climate change, is being released into Earth's atmosphere on a global scale."
And here was me thinking it was being released on a inter-galactic scale.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Scale (Score:4, Interesting)
All the more reason to plant and keep more trees, especially oaks and similar trees that will continue to grow for one to several hundred years. The more carbon they store long-term in the wood, the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, as long as we continue to grow more wood than we burn or allow to decompose. Decomposing wood should be buried a few feet beneath the soil to trap most of the CO2. The slower release of carbon into the soil also makes the soil richer for living plants (see also biochar).
Regardless of whether or not CO2 is really a problem, there are known hazards with extracting fossil fuels, such as the risk for oil spills, natural gas fires and explosions, cancer and poisoning from contact with petroleum, lung disease from inhaling coal dust, and questionable practices such as fracking that may pose risks of earthquakes, sinkholes, and contaminated ground water.
The "experts" assure us that these practices are safe and reliable. But we also had "experts" telling us that smoking was healthy for our lungs, x-rays were safe for checking the fit of our feet in our shoes, asbestos was a safe fire suppressant, sun bathing was healthy for our skin, etc.
For all the anti-AGW people I've loved before: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, sending up this satellite might just help us learn that AGW is not a problem, proving that you were right all along.
Don't be mad at Science. Someday, your incomplete in freshman physics will not matter any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Science generally starts with the big picture and works its way down to the details. In the big picture we know that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases, we know that humans are the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that the Earth's temperature would be around 0 degrees F (-18 C) without the effects of greenhouse gases. Those are all pretty much settled. This satellite is filling in the details.
mystery where most anthropengic CO2 goes (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore we dont know all the non-human sources. Is there a significant amount being released from melting permafrost marshes? Some onsite studies suggest the possibility. Volcanoes, melting sedimate methane hydrates too. This satellite could help constrain unkown sources and sinks.
The resuting data is likely to fuel both pro and anti AGW factions. A significant group prefers not to know whatis happening at all and blocked these kind of satellites in the 1990s and 2000s. I wish to know what is happening.
*the* greenhouse gas! (Score:2)
Given that methane is known to have a larger immediate effect one would have thought that a multimillion dollar mission would carry more than one instrument to nail down which of the many green house gases are having the most impact ... rather than assuming the models are right and that it's the CO2
Re: (Score:2)
Awful... (Score:2)
It's simple. (Score:2)
It's obviously all those diamonds that are evaporating. Somebody has to do a paper that we can show our wives/girlfriends, that clearly demonstrates that diamonds are bad for the environment.
THis is the most important launch since apollo (Score:2)
And the world is in for a shock.
Re:what a waste of money (Score:5, Funny)
You obliviously know nothing about science. Until we eliminate all carbon dioxide from the earth's atmosphere, humanity will be in danger.
Re:what a waste of money (Score:5, Funny)
We must go even further than that. We must entirely eliminate all carbon and carbon-containing compounds from the earth's biosphere. Otherwise, oxidation of organic compounds will once again result in the release of CO2.
As a side effect, doing so will eliminate all danger of young children dying due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Think of the children!
Re: (Score:1)
Down with carbon!!!!!
Down with carbon!!!!!
Down with carbon!!!!!
Re:what a waste of money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
July 1936 was the hottest month in the temperature record, then it wasn't, now it is again; so who is the denialist? RSS temperature data set shows no warming for 17 years [climatedepot.com] and even hunts at a possible cooling, UAH temperature record shows no significant warming for 17 years [drroyspencer.com] and the USCRN [noaa.gov] even shows a 10 year pause in warming; so again who is the denialist?
Re: (Score:3)
If my feet are cold, that means I can't possibly have a fever. Fact.
34th from being a record cold winter (Score:5, Informative)
This was the coldest winter this country has ever seen. Fact.
Not a fact.
The winter of 2013 - 2014 was one of the ten coldest winters in history in the Midwest U.S.
It was the warmest winter on record in California, and set records for high temperatures in Alaska.
Overall, it was the 34th coolest winter in the contiguous U.S. since records began in 1895. The contiguous United States comprises 1.5% of the surface area of the Earth. One season, in 1.5% of the Earth's surface: this is weather, not climate
http://www.wunderground.com/bl... [wunderground.com]
http://www.weather.com/news/wi... [weather.com]
Climate is long term, weather is short term (Score:3)
It's not, and it also annoys me when people say that.
No single hurricane, heat wave, tornado, flood, wildfires due to drought, storm surge, hot summer, rainy winter is due to global warming, just as no single cold snap, hurricane free season, unseasonably cool spring, early winter storm is evidence that global warming isn't real.
Those are all weather. Climate is long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The forceful and unassailable tone taken by !=DrWho hilites his/her contempt for science itself.
Sometimes when I'm alone, I draw mustaches on pictures of Albert Einstein--because NO ONE fucks with Isaac Newton in MY HOOD, BITCH!
Down with Science! Burn the Heretics! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is not joking matter! Next up on the agenda is Oxygen sequestration, a noxious, highly reactive, corrosive gas that instantly kills most cells it comes into contact with and, in high enough concentrations, can set just about anything on fire!
And don't even get us started on dihydrogen monoxide!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How can you tell the difference between a [scientist] and an islamic extremist? You can't.
If you can't tell the difference it's because of you, not because of any inherent similarities between scientists and islamic extremists.
If you feel threatened by science, feel free to bow out of this society built on the innovations of science and return to you cavemen roots.
Re: (Score:2)
You obliviously know nothing about science. Until we eliminate all carbon dioxide from the earth's atmosphere, humanity will be in danger.
Actually, that would destroy open field agriculture. But seeing as the concentration of CO2 will naturally decrease due to the feedback in long-term carbon cycles, this is inevitable - about a billion years in the future or so. So we don't have to work very hard at it. :-)
Re:what a waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm [geocraft.com], with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
Of course, but keep in mind that the sun has been getting hotter during its lifetime, so you can't just compare CO2 levels assuming everything else was the same.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are aware that isn't true, right?
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re:what a waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what a waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't. On the short time scale because the radiation changes are overwhelmingly cyclical (the increase is on the order of 1% per 100 My), on the longer time scale because the feedback loops compensate the radiation increase by CO2 decrease (through increased absorption by various means) so that the temperatures remain roughly the same.
The point is that itzly was talking about Ordovician CO2 concentrations (thousands of ppm, but hundreds of millions of years ago), but geekidiotoid has "countered" this argument by linking a page describing the events of a few recent decades. See the problem yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that ice cores don't go back that far. Best so far is 800,000 years, with the bare possibility of more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you be so dumb as to not be able to find answers for yourself on the very site you're linking? I suppose you're incredibly lucky that human breathing is involuntary.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runa [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like geekoid just misread the comment that he/she is replying to. Happens to the best of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers, (Score:2)
this would seem to be moot to me. Humans have only been here for the briefest of very *recent* moments, but we do have a particular interest in keeping earth habitable for *human* life.
Assuming your numbers are correct, it still doesn't do us any good to say that gosh, a few million years ago there was a lot more carbon dioxide, if for the purposes of *human* life a particular (and lower) level is necessary.
The goal is for us, not for the earth itself, to survive.
Ordovician [Re:what a waste of money] (Score:4, Informative)
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
It's lower than in much of the Earth's history, but no, not anywhere near an all-time low. The all-time low is about half the current value... which, as it turns out, also was a much colder time in Earth's history.
Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm [geocraft.com], with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:
And temperatures were much hotter, too. For most of Earth's history, the planet does not have ice caps.
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
And temperatures were about 3 degrees C above what they are today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
And temperatures were 7 degrees C above current temperatures.
Carbon dioxide, on the average, was higher during the Ordovician, and average temperature during Ordovician period was 2C above modern levels (with sea levels 180 m higher). There was indeed a brief ice age-- about half a million years-- during the Ordovician. (for reference, the Ordovician lasted about 45 million years) But, guess what? That ice age corresponded to a low level of carbon dioxide. http://www.newscientist.com/ar... [newscientist.com]
Every single one of the examples you cite supports the basic observation that increased carbon dioxide correlates with increased temperature.
Yes, correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, you certainly can't point to this as evidence that carbon dioxide isn't related to global temperature
Re:Ordovician [Re:what a waste of money] (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait, doesn't your rebuttal show that the earth's temperature will not spiral out of control leading to the death and destruction predicted? :P
To be honest you make great points for the view that we are really in a geologic cold period and global warming is just returning us to average temperatures for geologic time frames.
Jurassic Earth [Re:Ordovician] (Score:2)
Wait, doesn't your rebuttal show that the earth's temperature will not spiral out of control leading to the death and destruction predicted? :P
I don't recall ever making such a prediction.
To be honest you make great points for the view that we are really in a geologic cold period and global warming is just returning us to average temperatures for geologic time frames.
Yep, that's pretty much correct. The Earth is, on the average, quite a bit cooler than it has been in the geological past. It does not always have ice caps.
It happens that this is the climate that we humans are used to, and we've rather built our habitats and our agriculture around. But, on a geological scale, a few degrees of warming, and melting the polar ice caps. is no big deal. It's not the end of the world.
--unfortunately, when we return the planet to t
Re: (Score:2)
earth's temperature will not spiral out of control
What does "spiral out of control" mean? The literature shows that there will be economic consequences to increased warming and that mitigation will be cheaper than adaptation. You will not find "spiral out of control" in the literature.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
No, the sun is still the largest factor determining the temperature on this planet. In fact, I have it on good authority that Carbon Dioxide doesn't generate any energy what so ever and it is in simply a by-product of a reaction that does. Keeping this in mind allows us to explore options beyond just burying crap in the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
I thought solar radiation was the biggest contributor to the temperature of the Earth!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be pedantic all week.
Re: (Score:2)
But water vapor and solar output isn't controllable, and Control is what it's really about.
Not a waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
In an argument between two sides, one of which says the science has been studied for a long time and is well understood and the other that says "no, it's all confusing," I'll be on the side that says "let's get more data."
You would think. But you would be wrong. (Score:2)
In an argument between two sides, one of which says the science has been studied for a long time and is well understood and the other that says "no, it's all confusing," I'll be on the side that says "let's get more data."
Ironically, that would be the side saying the science has been studied for a long time, and is well understood.
That would be logical, wouldn't it? But it's not. That would be true if the side saying "it's all confusing" actually was confused, and actually wanted the understanding to improve. But, in fact, the people saying "let's not get data to try to learn more and understand the science better" are the same as the ones who tell us that we don't understand the science.
It's almost as if they don't want the science to be better understood.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that they don't want the science to be better understood, it's that they are convinced that government funding of scientific research is one of the factors contributing to their tax liability. For these folks we should leave scientific research to private industry, such as Koch Industries.
Re: (Score:3)
"... they are convinced that government funding of scientific research is one of the factors contributing to their tax liability."
The people who say that are just making up excuses to dismiss the conclusions of scientific research.
... And they don't even consistently apply their "government money" argument: You never hear them make those sorts of complaints about the results from the LHC (that costed about ~$9billion split across many nations).
In that way they're no different than Creationists who claim that Evolution is "just some secular hoax to fool the faithful".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already know those things, but they're politically unfeasible right now. Getting more information may change that.
Re: (Score:3)
More information will not change that. I've watched those people in Congress and their questioning of climate specialists. There's no amount of new information that will change their minds. I think it is an unholy influence of religion (Christ will save us), anti-Science (Science is some sort of dodge), economics (it will cost money to change), right-wingnut politics (if the left wants it, it must be bad), and finally, sheer ignorance (they never took a Science course they liked, and in most instances it ap
Re: (Score:2)
But would alternative fuels help prevent climate change?
I have seen studies that suggest that planting trees in northern latitudes for biofuels would actually increase global warming. Grasslands covered in snow does a pretty good job of reflecting heat back into space – trees less so. Also, changing the mega flora changes the microorganism in the soil, resulting in a greater emissions of methane – a much strong greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Pull one string of the web and unintended conseque
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I can "sigh" right back at you. The earth's temperature has risen slower than climate models suggest but in the artic has risen much faster than expected.
It is probably because climate modelsoverestimated the effect of snow's albedo. Areas that where traditionally covered by snow in spring are not. These areas absorb more heat during spring, are covered by less snow, less heat is reflected back into space, resulting in warmer ground and less snow cover. A positive feedback look that we have seen over th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to make the mountain of evidence bigger and bigger for you denialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could base policy on evidence rather than opinion polls. If this satellite proves that CO2 from industry really isn't a problem, then we can fire up the coal plants and carry on as normal.
If you want a "like" button, stop posting as anonymous coward, set up an account, and earn the right to handout moderator scores.
Contempt for Curiosity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Observing the Earth from space is part of NASA's mission and always has been (after they started launching satellites).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Heh, heh. The same thought went through my head as well. I'm surprised that some ultra-right-wing, climate-change-denying House member didn't notice the impending launch and try to pass an emergency budgetary measure to prevent NASA from putting up any satellites that might be used to monitor CO2 emissions. I'm predicting that the measurements will show large amounts of CO2 being released around large cities -- especially American cities -- and these folks will
Re: (Score:2)
Only people with absolutely zero knowledge about the physical, chemical, and biological science involved would ever think that this would be of any scientfific value.
So... you're saying there is no point in studying the carbon cycle further? The science is settled? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I give up. What alleged point are you attempting to make?
Re: (Score:2)
Scale, son. Science critically involves scale and a sense of it, something you lack.
Re: (Score:2)
Orders of magnitude (Score:2)
What about the amount of pollutants released with the launch of this satellite? Solid rockets and hydrazine aren't exactly environmentally friendly when you burn a million pounds in 12 minutes. The production of H2 and LOX is pretty dirty also, even if the final product is water.
OK, what about it?
I have a challenge for you. Using google, or your other favorite index-search tool, find out how much carbon dioxide is released by a single Delta-II launch. Then, look up how much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere per year by fossil fuel burning. Compare these two numbers. Do they differ by orders of magnitude? How many orders of magnitude?
Based on your findings, do you think that a rocket launch has a significant impact on global carbon dioxide levels? Do you think it has a
Re: (Score:2)
Trivially, no single car trip has an effect on global carbon dioxide. It's a collective effect. Being a collective effect does not make it nonexistent, but it does make it a problem hard to solve, since the problem is distributed.
So, here's an interesting question-- and I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm being real. Given that no one car trip has an effect on global carbon dioxide, but a hundred billion car trips do have an effect, what would be an appropriate approach to addressing this impact?
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't thousands of rocket launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, oil based cars are going away. They are too slow, too expensive, and nearly all of them are real POSs.
Re: (Score:2)
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 [wikipedia.org] created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (notice it includes aeronautics in the name). The scope of their charter is a bit broader than you think it is. From the Wikipedia article:
The original 1958 act charged the new Agency with conducting the aeronautical and space activities of the United States "so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:"
* Expansion of human knowledge of the Earth, the atmosphere and space
* Improvement of aeronautical and space vehicles
* Development and operation of vehicles for space flight
* Establishment of long-range studies of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes
* Preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science technology
* The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance
* Cooperation by the United States with other nations in the peaceful application of space research
* Effective utilization of scientific and engineering resources of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment
In 2012, a ninth objective was added: "The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes."
Re: (Score:2)
That's sad. Since it occurred in 2006 it sounds to me like a Bush administration change.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost 97% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Will this satellite be able to magically distinguish between sources? No. More wasted $.
Well yes they can tell because "man-made" CO2 is "special", it is inherently EVIL(tm), where non-man-made CO2 is plain!
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close.
However, what they are going to find is that the west does not begin to pollute anywhere near as much as other nations are.