CO2 JET: Scientists have outfitted a Gulfstream jet to make precise measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Image: ©iStockphoto.com/Stephen Strathdee
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
BOULDER—Scientists have taken the first crack at solving a fundamental climate mystery, criss-crossing the globe in a souped-up corporate jet to determine where and when greenhouse gases enter and leave the atmosphere.
An understanding of how these climate-warming gases move about the globe is a critical prerequisite for any policy aimed at curbing global warming, scientists said Thursday, and information gained over the next three years will play a crucial role in sharpening future predictions and improving their accuracy.
Using a high performance jet, scientists will take a series of "slices" of the atmosphere over the next few years from pole to pole and from the surface to the atmosphere's upper reaches.
They are expected to return from their first mission this week—a series of 11 flights from Colorado to the Arctic Circle to Tahiti, Antarctica, Easter Island and Costa Rica. Scientists running the instruments say they have seen several "wonderful jewels" in the raw data that challenge current thinking and assumptions.
When all the measurements are assembled, scientists added, they will for the first time have a picture of the atmosphere—and a global snapshot showing where and when some of the estimated 30 billion tons of carbon emitted annually by cars, factories, deforestation and other human activities enters the atmosphere.
"We were essentially retracing Captain Cook's voyages—obviously much later and with much more sophisticated instruments, but with some very similar parallels," said Britton Stephens, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the project's principal investigators.
"When he set sail, he knew the ocean was out there, but didn't really know the details. Similarly, we've been standing on the edge of the atmosphere—the surface—but we don't really know the details."
Researchers expect the $4.5 million mission to provide several critical answers to atmospheric riddles, but the two most important are fundamental to any effort to curb climate change, team members said during a conference call with reporters near the end of the first of five missions:
First, the project will fill key gaps in our understanding of how carbon cycles through the atmosphere and among the earth, air and oceans. Roughly half the carbon emitted by humans stays in the atmosphere, with the remainder being absorbed by ocean and earth ecosystems. But scientists don't understand how the system works or how quickly various gases mix.
The result, Stephens said, is that models of this so-called carbon cycle grown wildly divergent as they are projected into the future, with nearly 100 percent uncertainty by 2050.
Second, and perhaps most important, the map will provide a baseline against which efforts worldwide to curb carbon emissions can be judged. Need for such a benchmark has gained urgency, scientists and policymakers say, as the world moves toward regional, national and international agreements to limit greenhouse gases.
"If we expect to make treaties," said Steven Wofsy, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric and environmental science and another principal investigator, "those treaties have to be based on sound science. This slice of the atmosphere is going to help us understand that."
The effort is distinctly different from other efforts—such as the launch last week of a Japanese research satellite—to map carbon dioxide. Most measurements to date look solely at points on the surface. Satellite pictures can see broad swathes of the Earth but with very fuzzy resolution. This work, scientists said, examines nearly 100 different greenhouse gases in very fine detail at almost every altitude.
They have seen some "stunning" things: ground-level ozone, or smog, through the entire depth of the Northern Hemisphere at nearly triple the concentration observed in the Southern Hemisphere; a cloud of industrial pollutants sitting above the Arctic; a large mass of oxygen above the Southern Ocean.
See what we're tweeting about
40 Comments
Add CommentOK, let the propoganda roll in from the conservatives who think this is a huge conspiracy. I can't wait to hear about why they think this study is useless, a waste of money to learn about our atmosphere, not worth trying to find an answer to the worlds questions about our climate, and gaining data to possibly refute their complaints, or AGW itself....cool jet though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The result, Stephens said, is that models of this so-called carbon cycle grown wildly divergent as they are projected into the future, with nearly 100 percent uncertainty by 2050."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is exactly what skeptics have been saying all along. The models are NOT useful for determining future climate. It cannot indicate the future NOR the past. It can only model the increasing temperature trend of the recovery from the "little ice age".
Finally we have a president who understands the importance of collecting this critical data. I hope the stimulus package contains funding for three more jets. Then we can collect the data twice as fast. Two of the jets will be used to monitor that the stimulus money is being spent appropriately. As such, they will not need to be stripped of their original decore which will save the American tax payers even more...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoliticians, you can't fool with Mother Nature. She is not a political issue. For Northerners, ever notice it is never below zero Fahrenheit when overcast ski.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow dude that is just totally cool!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTH
www.internet-privacy.us.tc
Well, I for one am glad to finally have an answer to my question "when you say people are getting rich off the global warming 'scam', who exactly are you talking about?" Now I know...aircraft manufactures. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe major problem with current global warming (GW) theory is that GW data is bad (often erroneous) and climate models are too simplistic.� The research described in this article is critical for establishing the base line data needed for determining the independent variables included in state-of-the-art climate models.� Unless proper baseline data and a better modeling system is developed, billions (perhaps trillions) of dollars may be spent to solve a global warming problem that might not even exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming, real or not, is a good excuse to clean up the planet a bit. The threat of danger and the opportunity to make money off of the solutions are probably the only way big business is going to clean up their act. Real or not, the threat of global warming may do some good. Personally, I see this research as a step backwards. Sure it's nice to try and figure out how this stuff is happening, but spending 4.5 million so that we can wait three years to find out if global warming is even happening... and if so, where is it comming from... it's taking a stance of "wait and see". In the mean time, we know fossil fuels, cattle farming, and deforestation are the big three. It's just too bad that we like big macs, fast cars, and cheap foreign food. @.@
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, the data's good and consistently points in a single direction. Just because you're readying erroneous information, does not mean everyone else is. I did a search for your name, and found comments you've posted elsewhere...such as the mistaken belief that temperatures on Mars have been rising in equal levels with the Earth. Considering NASA's data disagrees on that topic, and they've actually got equipment there, we're gonna have to go with their data instead of yours. You'll have to troll elsewhere to get your book sold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis project can only improve our knowledge of Climate Change, which is too important a subject to skimp on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseco-steve:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you. I hope that the data collection is solid and rigorous, and that we will get to the point where we can find out if a problem actually exists.
I disagree with Nathaniel though, as fighting pollution (highly desirable) is a totally different issue from fighting AGW if AGW is a fantasy. There is no point spending money on something that is imaginary.
The only concern I would have is whether the data would be used to establish baselines that pre-suppose that AGW is real. In that case, it would have absolutely no benefit to resolving whether AGW is real or chimeric.
Spoonman WoS:
Google "Daily Sunspot Cycle" scroll back a few years. The Sun is deader than a post. This coincides with the cooling over the past 10 years. No computer programs needed to interpret this for you; the data passes the intra-occular impact exam; if it hits you between the eyes, you better take a closer look at it.
A couple of points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. this research was started before Obama took office so he had nothing to do with it.
2. this research sounds legitimate for the state purpose giving us guidelines
3. even they admit the failure of existing computer models
4. no laws should be enacted based on failed models which is what gore and others are proposing.
@Shoshin: you're going to have to narrow it down for me. Googling for such a generic term yields thousands of results, all of which show normal sunspot activity (with 11 year peaks and valleys). If you've got some research that proves your case, you better do a better job of getting it out there as all other attempts to correlate sunspot activity and global warming have failed miserably. There have been papers published, sure, that show a correlation, but once subject to peer review fail to stand up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoonmanWoS: I think you will agree that Dr. Mann's 'Hockey Stick" was based on incorrect baseline data. I am also sure you will agree that NASA's global temperature data over the past decade has proved to be incorrect and has subsequently been adjusted. In fact, recently, NASA reported that October 2008 was the warmest October on record, when in fact NASA had incorrectly and inadvertently used September 2008 data. Everyone makes mistakes. If a person has never made a mistake, it is because that person never tried to do anything. I am merely suggesting that everyone step back and take another look at the strengths and weakness of the data currently being input into climate models. I believe the margin of error associated with current climate models is of such magnitude that momentous decisions involving billions and perhaps trillions of dollars must not be based on the results of these models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can people who claimed that there was no debate about AGW and claimed that they understood how the process worked now claim that they do not know about the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that the AGW people can't say too many bad things about warming during the Bush administration because the planet has not had any warming over the past eight years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoonman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo to Spaceweather.com . Also there are numerous papers on the web correlating sunspot activity to the planet's temperature. What was not understood until recently was the role of sunspots. The issues that you raise likely revolve around total solar output, which is not correlative. The latest research (find it on the web yourself) has to do with the shielding effect of sunspot induced solar winds against cosmic rays and their role in cloud formation. The issue that has been demonstrated experimentally (something that has never been done with any computer models supporting AGW) is that increased cosmic rays = increased cloud cover. Now it is self-evident that cloudy days are cooler than sunny days, so there is your cause and effect.
As an aside, I find it interesting that ice core data show that CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 800 years, and that 800 years ago the planet was in the Medieval Warm Period. I'll pose the question: Is it possible that the present rise in CO2 the echo of the MWP?
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/ . I think it may address some of your 'theories' on sun activity.
Regarding your CO2 lag time, its been looked at already. Check out this link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Dr. Albert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the link to the the NASA data, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
While true they've had some issues in the past, I think the current data speaks for itself on the current global trends.
Personally, whenever someone has some degree of disbelief in AGW, I point them straight to ocean acidification. This we know is true. CO2 rise caused by us, is already acidifying the oceans (lowering pH). This will have drastic effects the world over if we don't start to change our emissions. Over a billion people in the world rely upon the oceans for their source of protein. If we want to keep it in a productive state, the money we spend now to curb our emissions will 'hopefully' pay off in the long run. That's if we don't wait too long.
Well, duh, I can answer the question to this problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreenhouse gas is introduced by evaporation. It leaves by precipitation.
You did all know that water vapor is hundreds of times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, right?
The fact that NONE of the climate models predicted the cooling for the past ten years or the cold spike in the northern hemisphere this winter means that they should be scrapped. That is, if you are truly interested in science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe filthiest places on the planet are the third-world communist countries. The cleanest places on the planet are the capitalist nations. And yet, you call the capitalist nations to task.
More proof that environmentalism is not about the environment.
Shoreliner11
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately I've visited realclimate.org several times in the past and refuse to frequent the site anymore. It has made and deserves it's reputation for publishing and supporting wild and discredited articles, such as Mann's Hockey stick model, Al Gore's Nobel prize for fiction and NASA's James Hansen's histrionic tirades, denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and on and on.
If you can find another site with some scientific credibility, I'd be happy to look at it, but realclimate.org, no thanks. I'll pass and just watch the Flintstones; at least they got the Cretaceous climate right.
Has anyone seen the article re: the recently ballyhooed warming of Antartica? Seems it was all a mistake. The weather station that showed warming was out to lunch. Oh well, don't let data stand in the way of spreading the Gospel of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 continuously is sequestered by nature where much of it doesn't get recycled into the atmosphere, such as carbonates and hydrofuels. Yes mankind is putting CO2 back into the air, though it doesn't seem to be changing the global temperature like the UN predicted. The increased CO2 over the past 250 years has increased agricultural production by about 30%. Of great concern is whether researchers will misuse the info they gather to encourage sequestering CO2. In this 3rd of Earth's atmospheres, atmospheric CO2 has decreased 90% since 540 million years ago, 80% from 170 million years ago (1700ppm). It now is down to 385ppm. Eventually, it will go down to about 150ppm when most plant life on Earth will die from starvation and Earth will start its 4th atmosphere (without CO2). Mankind has inadvertantly extended the potential length of the life giving CO2 atmosphere. Will humans in their zeal to "fix" that which is not broken, actually cause an increase in sequestering CO2 to the point where agriculture yields drop, and eventually Earth becomes sterile?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy isn't their outrage over the 40 billion pounds of aerosol pollutants spewed from East Asia? 10 billion of it hits North America. At least CO2 grows plants, the aerosols do the reverse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFr Gough : Yes, water vapour is indeed a very active greenhouse gas, but it has always been there and there is no current increase in its concentration. But water vapour is very important in controlling local weather systems, as its concentration varies wildly on a local level. Water vapour , unlike other grenhouse gases, exists in three phases, which stabilise its atmospheric concentrations. But other polluting gases do cause water vapour to be created from methane in the upper atmosphere where its presence is unnatural and hence potentially troublesome for Climate. Science papers do not mention this often...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific research on someone else's dollar is great fun, and might yield some useful information, at least enough to justify a need for greater study grants. They most likely will learn little of value about causes of climate change,( they are looking in the wrong place) but they should get a better under standing of all the sources of air pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is strange how people (mis)interpret data. The uncertainty is regarding details of the carbon cycle, global warming is an established, measured fact. Human causes are an inescapable conclusion from the data. This article only points out how the problem is being solved and therefore is encouraging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny one that thinks 1/3 of 1/10 percent of the atmosphere can effect it's overall thermal content is just plain stupid, and CO2 is a weak green house gas. It's the SUN. and it's cooling down !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHELLO is there any intelligent life here?
Global warming is a myth anyone who has any sence would just pick up the Bible and get all the 'back up' on resorces they need, its verry clear that God sayed he would never flood the earth again so there is no way there would be enough water/ice on this earth to flood the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe earth rotates in an oval around the sun so at sometimes it will be alot colder and than it will be alot hotter, do any of us remember when we were scared of freezing? now we have all this "global warming" rubbish!
come on a 7th grader could figure out that this is nonsence!! nothing can stop global warming because its not there!!! ok maybe out planet is getting warmer, its just part of what some of us would like to call the circle of life!!!! we arent going to shivell up and die from the heat or whatever all this crap is.
Public ed has done it's job. The sun spots are gone and we are going into a cooling phase, but don't let that get in the way of people making money on a lie. Small truth helps makes a big fraud. Write your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote no to "cap and trade", unless you would like paying $3500 a year per household. Snail mail is best, but E-mail has some pull. Smart to speek out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/debunking-climate-change-myths.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.livescience.com/environment/090121-antarctica-warming.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Antarctica is warming, and it's warming at the same rate as the rest of the planet," said study co-author Michael Mann of Penn State University.
This finding, detailed in the Jan. 21 issue of the journal Nature, has implications for estimating ice melt and sea level rise from the continent, which is almost entirely covered by ice that averages about a mile (1.6 kilometers) thick. The revelation also undermines the common use of Antarctica as an argument against global warming by contrarians, Mann said."
i wonder if they will then be able to determine how much all of the hot air over DC has contributed to global warming. every time obama opens his mouth the earth's temp probably goes up about a half a degree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4.5 Million wasted on a farce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf only humans hadn't started burning fossil fuels 4 million years ago, Arizona would still be a nice, warm, inland sea.
Plus we wouldn't have had those two(ish) Ice Ages either! Stinking humans- burning fossil fuels causing climate change for millions of years.
I say it has to stop now! No more changes to weather! If we haven't learned by killing off all the dinosaurs, and destroying the land bridge from Alaska to Russia, when will we learn??!!
My guess is that in the 20th century the climate was recovering from the last little ice age and in the 21st century we are plunging into the next little ice age. Only Henrik Svensmark has a climate model that really explains why but sometimes you can just be too right to ever be considered for a Nobel Prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocially and politically, we live in a golden age of morons.
Have the preliminary data from the first flight of January 8,2009 been analised and ready for dissemination ??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI AGREE WITH YOU !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave the preliminary data from the first flight of January 8,2009 been analised and ready for dissemination ??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this