Much ado about nothing
Science Daily reports today that scientists have for the first time detected regionally elevated atmospheric CO2 originating from manmade emissions. Using data from the SCIAMACHY instrument aboard ESA’s Envisat environmental satellite, they have found an extended plume over Europe’s most populated area, the region from Amsterdam in the Netherlands to Frankfurt, Germany.
I can almost see the alarmists dancing with rapture. However, we should first have a closer look on the diagram.
In the picture above, we can clearly see the areas of higher CO2 concentration marked in red. But look at the scale below the diagram. The difference between high and “normal” is measly 2.5 ppm. How is that for significant contribution? Also, let’s not forget that the IPCC predicts that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in a warmer climate. I got my hand read once. None of the predictions made then came true.
Dr Michael Buchwitz from the Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP) at the University of Bremen in Germany says that carbon dioxide emissions occur naturally as well as being created through human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) for power generation, industry and traffic. Dr Buchwitz doesn’t mention the CO2 we all emit in our breath. It kind of makes sense that there is more CO2 in a densely populated area, such as the Netherlands.
“The natural CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface are typically much larger then the CO2 fluxes arising from manmade CO2 emissions, making the detection of regional anthropogenic CO2 emission signals quite difficult,” Buchwitz explains. “This does not mean, however, that the anthropogenic fluxes are of minor importance. In fact, the opposite is true because the manmade fluxes are only going in one direction whereas the natural fluxes operate in both directions, taking up atmospheric CO2 when plants grow, but releasing most or all of it again when the plants decay.”
Dr Buchwitz admits though that significant gaps remain in the knowledge of CO2 sources, such as fires, volcanic activity and the respiration of living organisms, and its natural sinks, such as the land and the ocean. He also says “more studies are needed before definitive quantitative conclusions concerning CO2 emissions can be drawn”.
That leaves us with a nice little diagram that basically means zilch. Or as Shakespeare would say: “Much ado about nothing”.
Source: European Space Agency (2008, March 19). Satellite Makes First Ever Observation Of Regionally Elevated Carbon Dioxide From Manmade Emissions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com– /releases/2008/03/080318110330.htm
6 comments
Well, areas that are less densely populated with people are usually more densely populated with animals, so I would expect non-urban regions with similar climates to produce similar levels of exhaled CO2 (can we call it ‘faunagenic’?). But apart from that, I agree that 2 ppm is nothing to get excited about. There must be more variation than that in any two random samples.
Not much difference indeed - makes me think about the objections to the huge amount of pre-1950 CO2 data compiled by Beck, that were criticized for being contaminated by urban or industrial effects by IPCC affiliates (since they contradicted their CO2 ideology).
But note that one has diurnal swings during summer near ground (due to photosynthesis) that are a magnitude higher than thiose depicted in the Figure above
I am wondering if there is a thickness of the atmosphere component associated with this regionally elevated atmospheric CO2 picture of “the Low Lands”. Does this satellite show similar results when looking at Death Vally, California?
And yes, an regional average of 3 ppm difference when northern hemispheric annual variation is close to 8 ppm due solely to natural responses to the seasons is not alarming (unless you live in the Netherlands and are afraid you will be carbon-taxed out of existance as a nation).
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the story. Regional differences in CO2 has been observed for a long time and are used to track down sources and sinks of CO2. However, earlier observations are land based and suffer from low spatial coverage. Being able to observe the variations from a satellite increases spatial resolution and lets us track sources much better.
CO2 is added to the atmosphere over timescales of decades, the atmosphere is on a regional scale mixed on a timescale of days. Is it surprising that the variations are small? What the differences in that map show is emissions over a few days, but add it up year after year and it becomes a lot larger. Look up the term “well mixed gas”.
Well, after checking the math, it would take a drop in altidude to 40 meters below sea level to add an additional 0.5% increase in the amount of air column analyzed by the satellite. In other words, an icrease in the amount of CO2 in the column equivalent to 2 ppm. So, I guess I was incorrect in my hypothesis. I just wish the IPCC was as able to admit errors.
“Dr Buchwitz doesn’t mention the CO2 we all emit in our breath. It kind of makes sense that there is more CO2 in a densely populated area, such as the Netherlands.”
I suggest taking a few university courses — basic ecology 101, basic earth science 101, and math 101
Leave a Comment