6 ms·

Nice visualization from NASA: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-1920-MASTER.mp4 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/

by jakeogh 10y ago

Nice visualization from NASA: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-1920-MASTER.mp4 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-...

tejaswiy 10y ago
That is fascinating - Any idea how this was made?
- jakeogh 10y ago
  It's a simulation based on ground measurement. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11719 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11719 Now we have: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ (2014)
- benjoffe 10y ago
  Not entirely sure, but could be using the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite[0]. This satellite orbits the Earth on the order of ~16 times per day which would not be enough granularity for the smoothness of this video, so I assume it's been combined with other weather data and advanced modelling to provide the smooth interpolation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
  - mturmon 10y ago
    OCO blew up on launch, but OCO-2, its successor, has been producing data since 2014. This nature run was from 2006, which predates the OCO-2 era, and predates GOSAT, another CO2 satellite. It may overlap partly with SCIAMACHY, an ESA mission. But in summary, I don't think the video was heavily constrained by actual CO2 observations, which are done only at a small number of sites on the ground (TCCON or FTIR). The video was probably constructed based on models of plant respiration (which is observed, indirectly, by remote sensing), winds (ditto, of course), and ground emitters. OCO-2 has offered more significant constraints on global CO2, with a roughly 2km x 2km footprint (per pixel), 1ppm accuracy (in a ~400 ppm quantity), and global coverage every 16 days. There are some videos of observations (not models) at: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/ http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/
    - engi_nerd 10y ago
      OCO didn't blow up on launch. The payload fairing failed to separate. The vehicle couldn't reach orbit. Doesn't really impact what you're saying (nor does it alleviate the massive embarrassment of Orbital Sciences).
      - mturmon 10y ago
        Sloppy of me! You're right, of course. I knew people who went to see the launch at Vandenberg, and (being on the science team) they were crushed [edited to clarify: metaphorically! -- having spent so much hard work in preparation for eventual results] just a few minutes after launch, so I put it into the wrong mental category.
        mirimir 10y ago
        "crushed"?
tgb 10y ago
Beautiful. I'd love to have seen it in an equal-area projection, though. The high concentrations are disproportionately in the high latitudes where area is stretched, so I think the yearly variation would look a little less ominous that way. Anyway, I hope one day we can get a new Sim Earth with this style of simulation and presentation.
- ajnin 10y ago
  Here's another visualization by Oregon State University, similar to the video but with a navigable equal-area map : http://co2.digitalcartography.org/ http://co2.digitalcartography.org/
  - alex_duf 10y ago
    Wow, that's even better :)
  - gshubert17 10y ago
    I recall seeing a long-term (from roughly 18,000 BCE to 3000 CE) visualization of ice-cover, ground cover, and sea level, with numbers on the side showing CO2, human population, and population below current sea level. I recall CO2 less than 200 PPM during the last glaciation, and I think this projection showed a peak around 560 PPM, before gradually declining. Sea levels kept going up though, given the assumptions in this scenario. But I can't find it again. Anyone know about this?
andrewstuart2 10y ago
Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every summer? Wouldn't it logically follow then that we're not actually too late to fix our CO2 levels? If we can reduce emissions, plant consumption during the summer months for the northern hemisphere appears to be incredibly effective at basically demolishing the built-up CO2. Or is the "too late" aspect more about the melting polar caps, and that they'd not rebuild quickly?
- lisper 10y ago
  > Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every summer? No. The concentration does drop seasonally, but not even close to zero. See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Click on the "full record" tab and note that the Y axis starts at 320 (compared to the preindustrial level of 270). The seasonal drop is about 5PPM, and we're at about 400 now, roughly 50% over pre-industrial levels. There are seasonal natural emissions as well. Even if we cut artificial emissions to zero it would still take the better part of a century (maybe even several centuries) to get back down to preindustrial CO2 levels.
  - willholloway 10y ago
    We can fix this, we can take the carbon out of the atmosphere [1]. There is reason for optimism. We. Are. Not. Doomed. The optimum level of carbon is probably slightly above pre-industrial levels. We definitely need to get back below 350ppm to keep human civilization... civilized. 400ppm+ is a trajectory to anarchy. The chimpanzee raiding impulse is alive and well in our DNA, a survival adaptation for stagnation and decline. We have the technology, bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration, its a scaling problem, but first we have to stop pumping so much carbon up into the air. We have made progress there as well: 1) Cheap Solar PV has arrived, growth has been exponential for two decades. [2] 2) Energy storage is possible. Think underground maglev trains, on circular tracks, working as massive flywheels. 3) Fusion is attainable in the time frame we need it in, if we increase research funding, but its not required. That said if we cracked fusion, we would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester carbon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
mirimir 10y ago
That is neat. It looks like fire. Probably intentionally ;)

by jakeogh 10y ago

Nice visualization from NASA: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-1920-MASTER.mp4 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-...

tejaswiy 10y ago

That is fascinating - Any idea how this was made?

jakeogh 10y ago
It's a simulation based on ground measurement. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11719 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11719 Now we have: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ (2014)
benjoffe 10y ago
Not entirely sure, but could be using the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite[0]. This satellite orbits the Earth on the order of ~16 times per day which would not be enough granularity for the smoothness of this video, so I assume it's been combined with other weather data and advanced modelling to provide the smooth interpolation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory
- mturmon 10y ago
  OCO blew up on launch, but OCO-2, its successor, has been producing data since 2014. This nature run was from 2006, which predates the OCO-2 era, and predates GOSAT, another CO2 satellite. It may overlap partly with SCIAMACHY, an ESA mission. But in summary, I don't think the video was heavily constrained by actual CO2 observations, which are done only at a small number of sites on the ground (TCCON or FTIR). The video was probably constructed based on models of plant respiration (which is observed, indirectly, by remote sensing), winds (ditto, of course), and ground emitters. OCO-2 has offered more significant constraints on global CO2, with a roughly 2km x 2km footprint (per pixel), 1ppm accuracy (in a ~400 ppm quantity), and global coverage every 16 days. There are some videos of observations (not models) at: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/ http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos/
  - engi_nerd 10y ago
    OCO didn't blow up on launch. The payload fairing failed to separate. The vehicle couldn't reach orbit. Doesn't really impact what you're saying (nor does it alleviate the massive embarrassment of Orbital Sciences).
    - mturmon 10y ago
      Sloppy of me! You're right, of course. I knew people who went to see the launch at Vandenberg, and (being on the science team) they were crushed [edited to clarify: metaphorically! -- having spent so much hard work in preparation for eventual results] just a few minutes after launch, so I put it into the wrong mental category.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        "crushed"?

tgb 10y ago

Beautiful. I'd love to have seen it in an equal-area projection, though. The high concentrations are disproportionately in the high latitudes where area is stretched, so I think the yearly variation would look a little less ominous that way. Anyway, I hope one day we can get a new Sim Earth with this style of simulation and presentation.

ajnin 10y ago
Here's another visualization by Oregon State University, similar to the video but with a navigable equal-area map : http://co2.digitalcartography.org/ http://co2.digitalcartography.org/
- alex_duf 10y ago
  Wow, that's even better :)
- gshubert17 10y ago
  I recall seeing a long-term (from roughly 18,000 BCE to 3000 CE) visualization of ice-cover, ground cover, and sea level, with numbers on the side showing CO2, human population, and population below current sea level. I recall CO2 less than 200 PPM during the last glaciation, and I think this projection showed a peak around 560 PPM, before gradually declining. Sea levels kept going up though, given the assumptions in this scenario. But I can't find it again. Anyone know about this?

andrewstuart2 10y ago

Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every summer? Wouldn't it logically follow then that we're not actually too late to fix our CO2 levels? If we can reduce emissions, plant consumption during the summer months for the northern hemisphere appears to be incredibly effective at basically demolishing the built-up CO2. Or is the "too late" aspect more about the melting polar caps, and that they'd not rebuild quickly?

lisper 10y ago
> Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every summer? No. The concentration does drop seasonally, but not even close to zero. See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Click on the "full record" tab and note that the Y axis starts at 320 (compared to the preindustrial level of 270). The seasonal drop is about 5PPM, and we're at about 400 now, roughly 50% over pre-industrial levels. There are seasonal natural emissions as well. Even if we cut artificial emissions to zero it would still take the better part of a century (maybe even several centuries) to get back down to preindustrial CO2 levels.
- willholloway 10y ago
  We can fix this, we can take the carbon out of the atmosphere [1]. There is reason for optimism. We. Are. Not. Doomed. The optimum level of carbon is probably slightly above pre-industrial levels. We definitely need to get back below 350ppm to keep human civilization... civilized. 400ppm+ is a trajectory to anarchy. The chimpanzee raiding impulse is alive and well in our DNA, a survival adaptation for stagnation and decline. We have the technology, bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration, its a scaling problem, but first we have to stop pumping so much carbon up into the air. We have made progress there as well: 1) Cheap Solar PV has arrived, growth has been exponential for two decades. [2] 2) Energy storage is possible. Think underground maglev trains, on circular tracks, working as massive flywheels. 3) Fusion is attainable in the time frame we need it in, if we increase research funding, but its not required. That said if we cracked fusion, we would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester carbon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

mirimir 10y ago

That is neat. It looks like fire. Probably intentionally ;)