CARBON SATELLITE: The Orbiting Carbon Observatory will precisely measure CO2 levels throughout the atmosphere across the globe.
Image: COURTESY OF ORBITAL SCIENCES
-
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 »
Editor's Note (2/24/08): The Orbiting Carbon Observatory failed to reach orbit this morning, crashing into the Atlantic Ocean near Antarctica. Read our coverage here.
Human activity—from coal-fired power plants to car tailpipes—is responsible for nearly 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide wafting into the atmosphere yearly. We know that roughly 15 billion metric tons remains in the atmosphere for a century or more. A portion of the rest ends up in the ocean—acidifying saltwater and making life tough for corals—and another chunk appears to be helping tropical trees grow thicker. We don't know, however, where the rest of humanity's CO2 is disappearing to.
And that's what a new satellite launching tomorrow, dubbed the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) is designed to find out. "With the launch of OCO, scientists will be able to study CO2 concentration from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere," says Eric Ianson, OCO science program executive at NASA. "Its high-resolution measurements will provide a more complete picture of human and natural sources of CO2 at the local and regional scale."
Humans have been steadily adding to the total CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels—prior to the Industrial Revolution atmospheric concentrations stood at about 280 parts per million (ppm). Now CO2 makes up some 386 ppm in the atmosphere—and is rising rapidly. "On average, there are about four billion metric tons more of carbon in the atmosphere each year," says Anna Michalak, an OCO team scientist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. "This increase in carbon is contributing to climate change."
At present, CO2 is mostly monitored from a series of ground observation stations, the most of famous of which—Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii—has been measuring atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958. But even all 100 of these ground stations (plus high-flying aircraft) put together will not match the information provided by just one 16-day orbit of OCO.
The $278-million program will employ three spectrometers to analyze light reflected off Earth. Paired with precise data about where the satellite is—using the same Global Positioning System a cell phone taps, according to Mike Miller, vice president of science and technology programs at satellite-maker Orbital Sciences Corp.—OCO will be able to determine how many CO2; molecules are in that slice of the atmosphere based on how much infrared light has been absorbed.
"No other molecules have dynamics that are the same as these motions [of CO2]. They act as molecular fingerprints," says Charles Miller, OCO deputy principal investigator at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif. "Using very accurate measurements of the changes in the amount of light that are being absorbed by CO2, we can make a very precise measurements of the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere."
And that will enable scientists to determine what parts of the planet are responsible for pumping out CO2—coal-fired power plants, highways but also decaying forests—or absorbing it. "We'll have much more information on where the CO2 is, and from that we can infer where the sources are and where the sinks are," says David Crisp, OCO principal investigator at JPL.
To make the analysis, the satellite will orbit at an altitude of 438 miles (705 kilometers) traveling some 4.3 miles (seven kilometers) per second. It will take three measurements per second from its polar orbit, which allows it to circle Earth from pole to pole as the planet rotates beneath it, thereby allowing coverage of the whole globe. NASA expects the satellite to perform some eight million such measurements every 16 days, an avalanche of CO2 data that will roll over researchers for at least the next two years.
The Taurus XL rocket that will carry the nearly half-ton satellite much of the way to its orbit, scheduled to blast off at 4:51 A.M. Eastern time on February 24. In orbit it will be part of the "A-Train" of NASA satellites and will help supplement the data gathered by the Japanese Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT or "Ibuki" to the Japanese), which uses an interferometer to measure levels of both CO2 and methane, another powerful greenhouse gas. For the next few months, scientists will perform instrument checks and validate the data—as well as boost OCO to its operational orbit—before data starts flowing in the fall, according to Ralph Basilio, OCO deputy project manager at JPL.
By identifying the parts of the planet absorbing CO2, scientists hope to be able to predict how they might behave in the future. After all, if the oceans and forests absorb their fill—as seems to be happening in the Southern Ocean—atmospheric concentrations could rise much faster than anticipated in future. "We need to understand why plants and oceans are taking up as much carbon as they are and how this will change in future," Michalak adds. "It is important to be able to predict how things will change in the future."
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentHmmm. A finger pointing from 438 miles up in the sky at the people producing the most CO2? I wonder if some will start to squirm. Hopefully. And then take action to change their lifestyle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately I realize many will just discredit the measurements.
If people weren't so stupid and greedy, ie, business and government, we would be driving around in hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and have hydrogen fuel cell power stations at every house and business that is recharged with tap water. Coal power plants are killing thousands of people a year and the greedy, stupid people will tell you, as their child lies dieing from the mercury polluted glass of water they just drank, that the benefits outweigh the risks. Auto manufacturers should be forced to start mass producing hydrogen electric cars and the power companies should be forced to start building hydrogen power stations. If Iceland can do it, America can do it too...after all, aren't we supposed to be a smart nation; leading the world in new technology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's hope they've planted some trees to offset this things ride into space!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately trees are not going to solve our CO2 crisis. Yes, trees and plants sequester carbon in their fibers as part of their growth. However, when the wood is finally burned or decomposes, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere again. So planting trees is only a temporary fix.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy now, I'm sure you all are aware - the satelite's carbon footprint will not be outweighed by it's useful observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica's current economic collapse will cause a severe reduction in CO2 emissions and provide a preview of what it would be like to live in an earlier age such as the 1930's. Planting trees and starting forests in barren areas would be an effective carbon sink provided the new forests are permanent. Respectfully, Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil Porter is absolutely right. Every ton of pulled from the earth persists in our environment until the natural processes that stored it in the earth act upon it again. That being said the only way things will get better is if the regeneration of these carbon stores outpaces the folks harvesting them. That means less harvesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-On a side point the OCO crashed into the Pacific ocean this morning. Isn't that nice.
Jared
JamaesDavis;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen is probably the worst choice yet for a fuel. You speak of it as if it is magically created somewhere, somehow with fairy dust. The reality is that producing the energy needed to produce hydrogen is a dirty, filthy business; there is no free ride.
Hydrogen is also brutal on the ozone layer; far more destructive than CFC's. And hydrogen leaks from every fitting yet devised by man.
Gen IV nuclear reactors are the only feasible solution. If Pres. Obama really wants to get the U.S. off of the oil teat, he needs to get serious about Gen IV reactors and quit wasting time and money of the chimera of AGW.
I wonder if it crashed because it didn't work in the first place. Nasa probably new it didn't work but were pressured for results. 128 million? money well spent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, JamesDavis,
Get real would you. I think everyone should have solar powered flying machines too, that doesn't mean it is remotely feasable.
Neil Porter : Yes trees and all other plant biomass capture atmospheric Carbon, but you don't have to burn it or let it rot. If you pyrolyse it, you get Hydrogen gas and biochar, which is in fact charcoal. So you can crush biochar and mix it into soil to increase fertility. Therefore the carbon cycle is interrupted for thousands of years, as biochar doesn't rot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee : www.eprida.com for a detailed description.
The opening words of this nightmare are:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman activityfrom coal-fired power plants to car tailpipesis responsible for nearly 30 billion metric tons
I read later on:
"On average, there are about four billion metric tons more of carbon in the atmosphere each year," says Anna Michalak
Which is it?
That is assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of tree planting to a tree dieing. Consider a 10 to 1 ration of planting. Now, you increase the amount of trees absorbing CO2 10 fold. You are correct in saying that it is a temporary storage of CO2, it will get released back into the atmosphere, but the 10 new trees you plan will absorb that 10 times as fast, making a bigger 'bank' for CO2 storage....problem is, you have to stop planting trees at some point, and when you do, you have to maintain a 1 to 1 ratio of planting, or else you juts bought yourself some time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRob, I am far from an expert, but I will try to answer your question. Not all the CO2 emitted from humans stays into the atmosphere. Some of it has been absorbed by the ocean, and the chemical result is ocean acidification, which has been measured. Some of the CO2 is absorbed and stored by growing trees. That is why the total human output of CO2 does not match the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this