Taking measurements only twice a day is probably not enough.

Everybody's know that auto traffic emits CO2. However, traffic levels fluctute widely during the day. So, depending on when the samples are collected there could be a significant variation in the amount of CO2 from vehicles.

All in all, it sounds like a very complicated program. I am skeptical that they will get meaningful results. Would think it be better to just count the number and make of vehicles and figure a number for each one and the number of miles driven each year.

Likewise, for power plants and concrete work one could calculate emissions easily.

According to Zastrow, part of the challenge is to determine how much of the gases are human created and how much are from natural fluctuations.

Just look at the tag and see where it was made.

/sarc off

Seriously, good luck trying to figure out which CO2 molecule is from anthropogenic sources and which is from natural sources.

well now that you scamsters should have sobered up from your un-Nobel Peace party for your ordained commander-in-chief, perhaps you should devote some of your hangover time trying to convince the californians that the 10 million dollars and the two million dollar annual maintainence fee they are going to waste on purported co2 sniffers, would be better spent monitoring the amount of gas that big indonesian volcano is going to spew here imminently...perhaps then, you doomsdayers would realize, anthropogenic warming is a farce...but then again, you AGW'rs know this whole charade isnt about real science is it?

Slightly off-topic, but interesting nevertheless.

Take a look at this photo of the sun and see if you can tell anything anomalous about it.

Hint: When this happened between 1645 and 1715, life was not a bowl of cherries here on Planet Earth.

Could there be a way to tell the differnece between fossil fuel-derived CO2 and the kind from natural sources, Paul? Perhaps there could!

Paul:

Right on the money

I'm certain that the researchers have some sort of statistical model to divine which bad molecule is from the natural sources and which bad molecule is from bad people.

Betcha the results (peer reviewed of course) will show beyond a shadow of doubt that bad people are making bad molecules and compounding the whole GW issue. Oh and there will be some percentage increase that the MSM will presume is a harbinger of doom.

See the cost, a mere 1 million a site. Wonder who's paying that?

Has it occurred to anyone to actually figure out if the additional 100 ppm CO2, about 250 billion tons, has caused the ONE degree increase we have experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age?

Right, right, the science is settled and whatnot. Anyone know of any studies that don't simply say CO2 is the cause because natural variances are "unlikely"?

You know this 2.2% increase in humidity in the last 30 years equates to over 250 billion tons of water vapor. Water vapor absorbs more bands of radiation and absorbs twice as much energy per unit mass as CO2?

So let's see. An extra 250 billion tons of CO2 causes the world's temperature to go up One degree. But an extra 250 billion tons of water vapor makes it go up Zero?

CO2 forcing? So extra CO2 is supposed to create more water vapor that in turn causes the extra warmth. Well which one is it?

I think we are going to find that AGW because of CO2 is way off base. Climatology will be synonymous with alchemy in the next 50 years. A bunch of magicians who "mean" well, but produce nothing.

Regards,

Steve

Who would think Nitric acid would do such a thing? Kill our species. Surely man can't cause this either!

Nitrogen: The Silent Species Eliminator
Science Daily � Nitrogen pollution from agriculture and fossil fuels is known to be seriously damaging grasslands in the UK. A new European study is starting to show that the effect is Europe-wide, confirming that current policies to protect ecosystems may need a re-think.
When Carly Stevens finished her PhD in 2004, her findings were published in Science. Stevens had found the first evidence that nitrogen deposition from the atmosphere was depleting numbers of plant species in British grasslands. �There was experimental evidence that this could happen, but we were the first to show the effect is real and happening now,� says David Gowing, one of Stevens� PhD supervisors at The Open University in the UK.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071012105816.htm

Brett, two questions.
1. The CALGEM web site discussed a number of GHG's but did not mention the role that water vapor plays in this study. Is this an oversight or don't they have a reliable method for measuring its impact? Reply: I highly doubt it is an oversight.

2. It sounded like the sample size being taken was quite small in relation to the enormous volume of air being monitored. Can they really draw science-based conclusions on GHG concentrations using this sampling method? Reply: I honestly do not know. This is something new.

Brett, how accurate is something like this? Besides I thought the AGW crowd knew how much C02 is man-made? Reply: They are comparing the ratio of man-made to natural greenhouse gases. In terms of accuracy, I would say it is too early to tell.

Brett, I think you're confusing the global CO2 picture (which is entirely clear) with an attempt to do the same on a regional level (much more complicated). Getting this information is very important for California since without it we have no means of knowing how we're doing on our 2050 goal of reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels.

Well, according to our fellow deniers, the billions of tons of CO2 we emit every year gets completely absorbed by the ocean, and that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is strictly due to warming oceans.

Great. Well, if this idea works, then it will show that all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, thus confirming the deniers' theory. What are the deniers afraid of? Are they afraid that this would not only confirm, but provide a measure of the anthropogenic CO2 component in the atmosphere, subsequently blowing away their ridiculous theories.

Nah, of course not.

Oh well. Deniers can always resort to their usual tactic of claiming that these scientists are Communists and how we're all going to be rationing food soon.

Mr. Bloom,

If you're suggesting carbon isotope ratios, how do you know the carbon hasn't been recycled once, twice, a hundred times?

It's sort of like this problem, you find a zircon in a sandstone. You obtain a radiometric age of 1.2 billion years. How old is the sandstone?

"So extra CO2 is supposed to create more water vapor that in turn causes the extra warmth."

Hey, you got it! Water vapor is a feedback.

Paul, you might consider reading up on this stuff rather than continuing to assume that climate scientists must share your lack of knowledge. But I repeat myself.

Hey, you got it! Water vapor is a feedback.

Boris,

Forcing and feedback, very interesting Climate concepts. Let's take a look.

If it is in fact CO2 that is warming the atmosphere then the additional water vapor will act as a coolant as it takes more than twice the energy to raise the temp 1 degree for the same amount of mass

This is further compounded that humid air is less dense than dry air and warm air is also less dense so convection is stronger.

This may escape you but there is only .69 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of air at sea level. .69 grams of CO2 can only absorb so much energy before it's temperature is higher than that of neighboring water vapor and transfers the delta to the water vapor. At 20 C a cubic meter of air can hold ~20 grams of water vapor before it saturates.

Since water vapor's specific heat is 2.46 times greater than that of CO2, it takes more than 2.46 times the energy emitted from CO2 to raise the temp of water vapor because the emitted radiation is weaker than what was absorbed.

There is simply not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do the work you and many other AGW'ers are attempting to attribute to it.

Finally, one needs to look at convection to truly understand how most of the heat energy is transported to space.

If you can show me how .69 grams of CO2 per cubic meter can cause the amount of warming you are talking about I'd love to see it.

Regards,

Steve

Mr. Bllom,

Enlighten me. I'm sure that somewhere in that ivory tower where you dwell, you can find a reference for an evil skeptic such as myself. Or do you not have a clue? I will pick choice B, you don't have a clue.

A typical AGW tactic of obfuscating when they are clueless feigning intellectual superiority.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731�1748.

I'm pretty good at providing links, Paul. In this case all you have do is scroll up to the eleventh comment. Since five of the eighteen comments on this post so far are yours, you must have put some serious effort into not noticing that link.

Mr. Bllom (and for the anonymous For Paul),

Maybe you should read this paper. As I said before, carbon isotope ratios aren't all that straightforward. From the abstract of the paper:

"The significance of a 400 year (1550-1950 AD) 13C/12C chronology from a juniper from the Sinai Peninsula has been reassessed. A calibration of the isotope data covering the period 1740-1950 was carried out using the 13C/12C of CO2 trapped in ice cores and a carbon isotope fractionation model. The calibration indicated a surprising constancy of Ci/Ca (concentration of CO2 in the leaf intercellular space to that in the atmosphere) during this time period. Using this procedure of calibration, when the pre-1740 tree ring record was examined in terms of the 13C/12C of the atmospheric CO2, significant variations were indicated. These variations, comparable to that imposed by anthropogenic causes occurred between 1700 and 1850 AD. Obviously, such variations in the 13C/12C of atmospheric carbondioxide is unlikely, but rather these should reflect variations in the Ci/Ca ratio. Interestingly, the atmospheric 13C/12C variations deduced from this tree ring record parallels the 14C variations in the atmosphere during the same period. Since the 14C variations (at least prior to 1850 AD) have been linked to solar activities and by implication to climate, covariation between 13C/12C and 14C supports the hypothesis that the marked shifts in 13C/12C prior to 1850 resulted from a climate-induced perturbation in the Ci/Ca ratio. The combined calibration procedure and comparison with 14C provides a more useful approach to interpret 13C/12C time series in trees."

What does this mean? It means that the article you referenced failed to mention that climate changes can cause natural variations in the isotope ratios in tree rings. In order to quantify the degree to which changes are anthropogenic, one must first account for, and subtract, natural variations. This was not done. And yet it is known that isotope ratios are variable and began to change long prior to 1850.

Just look at the tag and see where it was made.

Seriously, good luck trying to figure out which CO2 molecule is from anthropogenic sources and which is from natural sources.

Uh, Paul, if you follow the link to the project cited in Brett's thread-starter, you'll see how the project proposes to identify the anthropogenic component: IT IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE. Perhaps you might try actually READING the project material before attacking it.

Here's how THEY SAY they did it (as opposed to our speculation):
The team predicted variations of midday CO2 from ecosystem exchange and fossil fuel emissions in the lower 100 meters (about 300 feet) of the atmosphere for two seasons. They showed not only that ecosystem and fossil fuel signals are large enough to measure, but also that these signals are sufficiently different in spatial and temporal variation that, by measuring CO2 at many sites, human contributions could be identified. With the exploratory study as proof of concept, the Berkeley Lab group launched CALGEM. (emphasis mine).

From the figure caption:
Computer-simulated maps developed at Berkeley Lab for the California Energy Commission show predicted CO2 concentrations in the surface layer of atmosphere from net ecosystem carbon exchange and fossil fuel combustion. During the summer, CO2 is actively removed from the atmosphere in some locations by photosynthesis, and released in others through respiration, as soil microbes decompose organic matter. During the winter ecosystem processes show different patterns, reflecting a combination of cooler temperatures, moister conditions, and the action of different plant groups. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions, concentrated in urban areas across the state, are more constant across the seasons. (emphasis mine)

In addition to the CO2, the project is also measuring other GHGs, such as methane. They will use radon as a tracer:
Beyond the GHG measurements, one tower will also take measurements of radon (222Rn) to monitor the rate at which GHGs are diluted in the atmosphere. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas with a half life of 3.8 days. The short half life makes 222Rn an excellent tracer of atmospheric mixing, and a tracer of the origin of atmospheric air masses. For example, air masses coming to California from the ocean have much less radon gas than air masses coming from land. Similarly, air near the land surface has more 222Rn than air in the upper atmosphere.

The 222Rn measurements provide scientists with a tool to quantify how much contact a given air mass has had with the land surface, and therefore the change in GHG concentration expected from a given amount of emission. "Together, these measurements will provide an unparalleled tool for monitoring trends in atmospheric GHG concentrations in California," says Fischer.

If you'd like more specifics, I refer you to the Development of an Implementation Plan for Atmospheric Carbon Monitoring in California, Fischer, Riley and Onse, cited at the project website listed above and in the thread-starter.

If we are going to argue about methodology, let's please focus on the methodology actually used on the project in question.

bt,

A day late and a dollar short, oh well. Welcome, anyway.

So, from your grand synopsis, they plan on wasting millions of dollars to prove that there are CO2 domes over the nation's cities. Like we didn't know that already. Two million dollars a year is what I call really good job security. And the California Energy Commission is stupid enough to fund this boondoggle.

Well, you know what P.T. Barnum said.

Well, Paul, you've made a fool out of yourself again: The California project involves direct atmospheric measurements; i.e. no tree rings whatsoever. Get it? Also, For Paul cited that paper not because of anything having to do with the accuracy of using tree rings to measure past CO2 levels but because it describes the isotope variations between the different carbon reservoirs. You'll never graduate from high school at this rate.

Mr. Bllom,

I'm glad your so happy that the taxpayers of California are spending in excess of $12,000,000 to measure something that is already known (CO2 dome). What we need now is to have Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Boxer get some federal money for this project so everyone can participate in this folly.

Paul's first comment on this thread included this:
Seriously, good luck trying to figure out which CO2 molecule is from anthropogenic sources and which is from natural sources.

Following this "serious" comment, he contributes a red herring (carbon isotopes) along with three more comments challenging the methodology of the study.

Yesterday, I reminded him (and us) of what the study was actually about. Suddenly, his "serious" comment apparently wasn't so serious after all -- he follows with this:

So, from your grand synopsis, they plan on wasting millions of dollars to prove that there are CO2 domes over the nation's cities. Like we didn't know that already. Two million dollars a year is what I call really good job security. And the California Energy Commission is stupid enough to fund this boondoggle.

So he first suggests that it's impossible to differentiate anthropogenic from natural atmospheric CO2. Not surprising, since the ability to do this is rather devastating to the contrarian claim that there is no measurable anthropogenic component to atmospheric CO2.

Then, we confronted with evidence that it isn't so impossible after all -- evidence that was, in fact, THE ENTIRE POINT of the thread -- he responds with a sour-grapes assertion that "we knew that already".

So, in spite of his complaints about the cost of this "boondoggle", even Paul will apparently now agree that:

• There are atmospheric CO2 domes over cities.


• The anthropogenic component of those domes can now be accurately measured

I hope that Pau