Satellite Captures Glowing Plants From Space

sciencehabit writes About 1% of the light that strikes plants is re-emitted as a faint, fluorescent glow—a measure of photosynthetic activity. Today, scientists released a map of this glow as measured by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, a NASA satellite launched in July with the goal of mapping the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The map reveals that tropical rainforests near the equator are actively sucking up carbon, while the Corn Belt in the eastern United States, near the end of its growing season, is also a sink. Higher resolution fluorescence mapping could one day be used to help assess crop yields and how they respond to drought and heat in a changing climate.

NASA link

[Dan East]

Here is a higher resolution version of the map:
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/p... [nasa.gov]

I live in an orange area of the US, and it's not the "corn belt" either, but the Appalachians.

Re:NASA link

[MightyYar]

Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they would be looking on fluorescence, algae under even a few feet of water might be harder to detect??

Re:NASA link

[David_Hart]

Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!

I can only guess that fluorescent glow from algae, sea weed, etc. would be diffused in the water so much that it wouldn't get picked up on satellite. If you notice, they picked up the islands but not much from the surrounding ocean. In addition, ground based plants tend to be denser than water based.

Re:

[Beat The Odds]

Here is a higher resolution version of the map: http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/p... [nasa.gov]

I live in an orange area of the US, and it's not the "corn belt" either, but the Appalachians.

We all know that the orange area is in Florida and not the Appalachians.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't my comment, but I object to the down-mod! It was a nice reference.

Misleading Headline

[rossdee]

Sounds like the start of The Andromeda Strain

Re:

[mcmonkey]

Word.

The capture is from space, not the plants.

Re:Better idea

[Noah Haders]

holding your breath produces MORE carbon because it gives more time for lung tissue to absorb the O2 and release the CO2.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Kawhoosh!

Re:

[dave420]

Or we could just stick with the science, which has roundly demonstrated climate change, and pinned the cause on AGW. If people want to dissent and be taken seriously, they should publish papers in respected journals, as we as a society demand our scientists do. Giving equal time to people who are just spouting off nonsensical gut-feeling arguments or who are woefully ignorant of the data and the implications drawn therefrom, is only going to hurt us all.

Rain forest

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the outcry over what Brazil, Indonesia, central Africa and other areas are doing to tropical rain forests? There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.

Re:

[Jstlook]

There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.

Now, the thing that gets under my skin about your mentality is this:
As an American, I recognize that American philosophy is very commercilized, very liberal-thinking, and very consumerist in general.
What I respect about the outrage over people actively producing carbon is that it encourages people to take some ownership of their choices and actions.
What I cannot respect about the outrage that people have regarding the destruction of these tropical rain forests (or anything, really, for that matter) is

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want them to stop destroying the land that protects our planet, outrage over their actions certainly isn't going to accomplish diddly squat; you're going to have to change the equation. They're currently decimating the rain forests because it benefits them to do so. I would be very surprised if they had very many other apparent options that enable competition in a global marketplace. I keep hearing 'think local' when it comes to sustainability, but, globalization certainly has some benefits too. That could enable us to put positive pressure on other continents and countries to follow our philosophies and moral standards, don't you think?

No, you're probably too young or stupid to remember when tropical deforestation was a major issue, at least at the same level as climate change is currently. The agitators, after years of fruitless effort and third world countries arresting, imprisoning and killing them, moved on to easier targets. The problem is real, still exists and will get worse. Note also; many of the loudest third world voices calling for "climate reparations" from "developed" countries are the very ones destroying the most tropical

Re:

[Jstlook]

Fair enough. I'm too young and stupid to remember the past, congratulations on your observation. Do me a favor though, and clarify what you mean. You mean that the agitators are people complaining about tropical deforestation, or are people they the people perpetrating tropical deforestation? You weren't clear.

To be fair, I think my one of my points was very specifically that the countries most in need are in fact the ones most responsible for the tropical deforestation. To wit:

you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves?

My response to that ide

In addition to the huge green glow?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could not see any reference to the wavelength they are measuring, is that buried in the pay-walled article?

Re:

[dsgrntlxmply]

Chlorophyll fluorescence tends to be deep red, say 680-740 nm.

Utter disappointment.

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Am I the only one who is sad because satellite actually captured images of the plants and not the plants themselves?

Re:

[dave420]

You are the one apparently peddling nonsense. If you don't like the scientific method, stop using your computer now. You using it is hypocritical, if you are going to turn around and say the very method itself is intrinsically flawed. Either your computer works and there is indeed anthropogenic global warming, or your computer doesn't work and there isn't. You can't really have both.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I don't think it's 1%

[stooo]

Hi
I seriously doubt 1% of light is reemitted. A tree would give more light than a torch.

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

A tree would give more light than a torch.

How'd you work that out? Can't quite work out what you mean.

Re:

[stooo]

it's simple : Direct sunlight is 1000W/m.
Let's say a tree is 1m direct to sun. In nighttime, it would emit 10w over it's surface. That's not realistic.

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

Let's say a tree is 1m direct to sun. In nighttime

Ah, but who said anything about nighttime?

Re:

[dsgrntlxmply]

The emission is fluorescence. Some fraction of the incoming photons that get captured by the chlorophyll antenna system are absorbed, but have that energy re-radiated (at a somewhat longer wavelength after some energy loss) rather than having the energy used in photosynthesis or just absorbed and dissipated thermally. When the incident light stops, the fluorescence stops. The photosynthetic system can also emit a small amount of light after incident light stops (essentially run backwards, converting stor

So Much Desert...

[Thelasko]

Until I looked at this map, I had no idea so much of the planet was inhospitable. Basically all of the purple on the map is a desert, excluding a few places in the southern hemisphere where it was winter.