Devastating Report On Record Greenhouse Gas Levels

[Wanderfound]

3. Except you can't use hydro everywhere, nor necessarily geothermal and we still don't have the capacity in any large scale to store the power from wind, tidal or solar power (we could use giant hydrogen storages, but I'm betting thats gonna turn out allmost more dangerous than nuclear power on the scale needed) on a scale to fully power a western country.

Which is why nobody sensible is calling for "hydro everywhere" or "geothermal everywhere". As I said, you need all of them; hydro on the rivers, geothermal on the volcanoes, tidal in the oceans, solar in the deserts. Adapt the power generation to the local conditions, and decentralise it as much as possible in order to reduce transmission losses. This also reduces the storage issue; solar when it's sunny, wind when it's windy, pumped hydro storage when it's neither sunny nor windy, etc.

You also can't use fission everywhere. As well as requiring a substantial amount of industrial, technological, economic and political infrastructure to maintain, fission reactors are also massive water hogs. Potable water is running short already, and if you try to use desalinated seawater to cool your reactors you end up wasting most of the power generated in the running of the desal plant. Not to mention the horrible effects that desal has on the local aquatic biosphere, which is another resource that's running dry due to idiotic shortsightedness.

It would be lovely if fission was the solution to the climate problem, but it isn't. At best, it may be a somewhat useful temporary bridge on the way to genuinely renewable power. Uranium fission is 1950's tech; its time is done.

[magnemoe]

Speaking as someone who used to work at a reactor...

Fission has its own major problems, although they're not quite the problems that the general public perceives them as. Waste disposal isn't a major issue, weapons proliferation is a major issue, water consumption is a moderate issue, and safety...well, the problem there is again political rather than technological. A well-designed modern fission plant, run by sane and competent people, is well within the bounds of acceptable safety.

But show me where we'll find a sufficiently large group of sane and responsible people in North Korea. Or Syria. Or Russia, for that matter. Chernobyl wasn't caused by fission, it was caused by Russian.

That is not within the bounds of acceptably safe. And there is no need to take the risk; non-fission renewables can do the job just as well. Not any one of them, but all of them: hydro, geothermal, wind, tidal, solar (both thermal and PV), etc. And, most important of all, efficiency. Most of the problem is not that we can't cleanly produce sufficient power; it's that we insist on wasting vast amounts of power in ridiculously idiotic ways. Single use aluminium packaging; 24/7 lighting and aircon; single-occupant commuter vehicles driven by large-block V8's; etc.

We're dying of stupidity.

I agree about nuclear waste, not weapon proliferation, the only countries who creates problems here is as you say not run by sane and responsible people. They will not follow any agreement if they find they can get away breaking them, they only react to heavy sanctions and military force.

Russia is lead by pretty sane and responsible people, they not be very nice but that is another issue.

Yes expanding with lots more nuclear power will cause accidents as lots of countries have more tradition for corruption than competence, magnitudes worse than soviet union.

Hydro is pretty much build out the places it can be used at least in the industrialized countries. geothermal work well the few places its effective, might be expanded into other countries, solar works well in warm areas with stable sunshine, if not it has the same downside as wind, you need to combine it with hydro or secondary gas as supply can not be guaranteed. Nobody as I know has managed to get much out of tidal, think main issues is shell growth and storms.

And yes I agree about better efficiency, however it will only slow down the growth in demand, or perhaps not even that, reduced prices tend to increase demand.

Taxing energy has the opposite effects, to moves energy demanding industry out, typical to China who is rapidly building new coal plants to satisfy the demand.

Edited September 12, 2014 by magnemoe

[magnemoe]

Which is why nobody sensible is calling for "hydro everywhere" or "geothermal everywhere". As I said, you need all of them; hydro on the rivers, geothermal on the volcanoes, tidal in the oceans, solar in the deserts. Adapt the power generation to the local conditions, and decentralise it as much as possible in order to reduce transmission losses. This also reduces the storage issue; solar when it's sunny, wind when it's windy, pumped hydro storage when it's neither sunny nor windy, etc.

You also can't use fission everywhere. As well as requiring a substantial amount of industrial, technological, economic and political infrastructure to maintain, fission reactors are also massive water hogs. Potable water is running short already, and if you try to use desalinated seawater to cool your reactors you end up wasting most of the power generated in the running of the desal plant. Not to mention the horrible effects that desal has on the local aquatic biosphere, which is another resource that's running dry due to idiotic shortsightedness.

It would be lovely if fission was the solution to the climate problem, but it isn't. At best, it may be a somewhat useful temporary bridge on the way to genuinely renewable power. Uranium fission is 1950's tech; its time is done.

if you have access to the sea or a river you will run an cooling loop in it or pump sea water trough an heat exchanger. Cooling towers probably consume water, but if you have water you don't need them

And I agree that uranium fission is 1950's tech, lets wait some years until we get fusion. it will solve most of this problem by itself.

[Wanderfound]

if you have access to the sea or a river you will run an cooling loop in it or pump sea water trough an heat exchanger. Cooling towers probably consume water, but if you have water you don't need them

And I agree that uranium fission is 1950's tech, lets wait some years until we get fusion. it will solve most of this problem by itself.

Fusion generation is, infamously, twenty years away. It's been twenty years away since the 1950's. It's probably still going to be twenty years away in 2050. Climate action was urgently needed thirty years ago; we can't wait for 2070.

Fukushima provided a relevant demonstration of why building your power infrastructure on the coastline isn't necessarily a good idea. Climate change exacerbates this issue; storm surges, hurricanes, general sea level rise, etc.

There was a piece on Ockham's Razor a few years ago that should be of interest to some folks here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/nuclear-energy-a-panacea-for-climate-change/3049300

If you have a dig through their archives, you'll find academics presenting opposing views on that argument, too.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Wanderfound

[magnemoe]

Fusion generation is, infamously, twenty years away. It's been twenty years away since the 1950's. It's probably still going to be twenty years away in 2050. Climate action was urgently needed thirty years ago; we can't wait for 2070.

Fukushima provided a relevant demonstration of why building your power infrastructure on the coastline isn't necessarily a good idea. Climate change exacerbates this issue; storm surges, hurricanes, general sea level rise, etc.

There was a piece on Ockham's Razor a few years ago that should be of interest to some folks here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/nuclear-energy-a-panacea-for-climate-change/3049300

If you have a dig through their archives, you'll find academics presenting opposing views on that argument, too.

Yes it has been 20 years away for decades, however until recently it was only one serious effort, today its lots of fusion research going on in multiple directions.

And the most likely solution is an energy breakthrough and fusion is most likely here, cheap printable solar cells might be another but would not have the transforming impact.

Benefit is that it don't require politicians, of other energy sources we have renewable and fission. Renewable works but mostly they can not be scaled up to meet the demand.

Chances of politicians in all countries sit down and agree to cut co2 emissions by 70% is very unlikely compared with they agree on world peace and an end to hunger both who are far simpler problems.

[Wanderfound]

Yes it has been 20 years away for decades, however until recently it was only one serious effort, today its lots of fusion research going on in multiple directions.

And the most likely solution is an energy breakthrough and fusion is most likely here, cheap printable solar cells might be another but would not have the transforming impact.

Benefit is that it don't require politicians, of other energy sources we have renewable and fission. Renewable works but mostly they can not be scaled up to meet the demand.

Chances of politicians in all countries sit down and agree to cut co2 emissions by 70% is very unlikely compared with they agree on world peace and an end to hunger both who are far simpler problems.

I think that you're most likely dramatically overestimating the feasibility of practical fusion power and the speed at which it could be put into large scale use even if it did exist.

Currently existing renewables appear to be doing better than expected; for example, see http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands

Waiting on a fusion miracle strikes me as analogous to a passenger on the post-iceberg Titanic reassuring themselves with the thought that we're totally going to invent a genuinely unsinkable ship any day now. Ain't gonna happen, and even if it did it would be too late to save the passengers on this ship.

It's time for a mutiny; storm the bridge and take over. We're still probably all gonna drown, but it's the only chance we've got.

[lajoswinkler]

Uranium fission is "so 50s"? LOL

France is building gen 3+ reactors, and gen 4 are already viable and ready.

When will you people learn that sunlight and wind can't replace uranium and coal? Those are two different types of sources. Energy management is a bit more than just stacking enough power plants like in SimCity.

[78stonewobble]

Which is why nobody sensible is calling for "hydro everywhere" or "geothermal everywhere". As I said, you need all of them; hydro on the rivers, geothermal on the volcanoes, tidal in the oceans, solar in the deserts. Adapt the power generation to the local conditions, and decentralise it as much as possible in order to reduce transmission losses. This also reduces the storage issue; solar when it's sunny, wind when it's windy, pumped hydro storage when it's neither sunny nor windy, etc.

You also can't use fission everywhere. As well as requiring a substantial amount of industrial, technological, economic and political infrastructure to maintain, fission reactors are also massive water hogs. Potable water is running short already, and if you try to use desalinated seawater to cool your reactors you end up wasting most of the power generated in the running of the desal plant. Not to mention the horrible effects that desal has on the local aquatic biosphere, which is another resource that's running dry due to idiotic shortsightedness.

It would be lovely if fission was the solution to the climate problem, but it isn't. At best, it may be a somewhat useful temporary bridge on the way to genuinely renewable power. Uranium fission is 1950's tech; its time is done.

And you don't think it has any enviromental and/or human effects to produce, deploy and maintain the around ie. 5.000.000 windturbines and/or 100.000.000 square meters worth of solar panels, needed to supply the world with renewable energy? Not to mention the 8.550.000.000 tonnes of "molten salts", if we pick that for energy storage or god knows how much hydrogen storage (because that never blows up), if we want to use light in the evening.

It's a pipedream.

To replace coal/oil/gas with renewable energy on a large scale is megaprojects on a scale that makes it as unlikely in the short term as fusion.

Edited September 12, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Seret]

I think that is a very important point. It is easy to point the finger of blame at someone else... "Stupid hippies and their antinuclear campaigns!", etc. But everyone should ask themselves " What am I doing to solve this problem?" What have we, as individuals, done to reduce our energy consumption? Do we really need an F150 to drive to work? Do we need to fly to Vegas for the weekend? Do we need the A/C running all summer? A lot of energy consumption is wasteful. Cutting down on that waste at the individual level will make a big difference if we all work on it.

This is a really good point. You can make a difference right now without reinventing the wheel. I've managed to cut the energy use of my house by 45% over four years using only measures that would pay for themselves in reasonable timeframes (<10 years). My target is 10% reduction year on year for ten years (so 65% overall).

The first 10-20% can be had virtually for free. Do a home power audit, build a basic thermal model of your house (your government probably already has a system for this that it requires the industry to use eg: SAP, Hot2000) and you'll be able to see where your opportunities for free or very cheap savings are. It's easy, it'll save you money, reduce your carbon footprint and make your home more comfortable. If everybody did this it would make a considerable impact, and we'd all be better off.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Seret

[sgt_flyer]

Yup - current 'renewable' resources are great as a point energy generation, combined with an energy storage system. (When you need to power isolated houses or machines)

Most high mountain hydroelectric dams are for energy storage - not renewable energy. so you'll be able to use the dams to supply peak demands, and use surplus energies to refill the dam (one exception, are tidal based hydro power plants. - those have completely predictable energy outputs for a renewable energy sources - you only need to know the strength of the upcoming tides)

For nuclear + coal, well, we can't really dismiss coal (or other fossil energy sources) when using fission reactors - simply because nuclear fission reactors are not 'flexible' enough to adapt to demand (and it cost a lot to stop or turn on a nuclear reactor) - so fossil fuel power plants gives the flexibility needed to nuclear power plants. (Even if they are also not cheap - a 600MW coal power plant unit cost around 200.000€ to just 'start' when you need their power (from the various resources and manpower required) - so i'll let you imagine the costs associated with stopping and starting a nuclear reactor)

[Seret]

For nuclear + coal, well, we can't really dismiss coal (or other fossil energy sources) when using fission reactors - simply because nuclear fission reactors are not 'flexible' enough to adapt to demand (and it cost a lot to stop or turn on a nuclear reactor) - so fossil fuel power plants gives the flexibility needed to nuclear power plants. (Even if they are also not cheap - a 600MW coal power plant unit cost around 200.000€ to just 'start' when you need their power (from the various resources and manpower required) - so i'll let you imagine the costs associated with stopping and starting a nuclear reactor)

Generally coal isn't flexible enough for load following either, for much the same reason as nuclear. They're usually very large thermal plants, and can't be switched on or off easily. Coal mostly occupies a similar role to nuclear: it's base load. Fossil fuel plants used for load following are other types like gas, which is becoming even more widespread. Modern CCGT plants can go from a cold start to up and synchronised in an hour, and can still be efficient at small enough sizes that they can be used more flexibly.

We really should push coal out of the grid entirely IMO. It may be cheap at the point of use, but it's very expensive downwind and we've got the technology to replace it available now. it should join the horse and cart in the scrapheap of obsolete Victorian tech.

[78stonewobble]

This is a really good point. You can make a difference right now without reinventing the wheel. I've managed to cut the energy use of my house by 45% over four years using only measures that would pay for themselves in reasonable timeframes (<10 years). My target is 10% reduction year on year for ten years (so 65% overall).

The first 10-20% can be had virtually for free. Do a home power audit, build a basic thermal model of your house (your government probably already has a system for this that it requires the industry to use eg: SAP, Hot2000) and you'll be able to see where your opportunities for free or very cheap savings are. It's easy, it'll save you money, reduce your carbon footprint and make your home more comfortable. If everybody did this it would make a considerable impact, and we'd all be better off.

Yeah, uhm... My parents live in a house built in 1930, there are limits to how much you can "tweak" a house like that, without ruining it's aesthetics. I live in an apartment from 1966, where atleast the isolation of my outer wall is at most 1 cm. of ... well whatever crap they had available back then, in any case, as a tenant I'm not allowed to make any "improvements".

On the other hand, I'm not having kids, so ... if allmost everyone did that or rather didn't... We wouldn't have a problem either.

[PakledHostage]

Yeah, uhm... My parents live in a house built in 1930, there are limits to how much you can "tweak" a house like that, without ruining it's aesthetics. I live in an apartment from 1966, where atleast the isolation of my outer wall is at most 1 cm. of ... well whatever crap they had available back then, in any case, as a tenant I'm not allowed to make any "improvements".

I think that Seret's point is that there are "low hanging fruit" around the house that don't require renovations to take advantage of. Things like unplugging appliances (like your toaster and wall warts) when you're not using them. These leach a surprisingly high amount of energy over the course of a year. And everyone's mother's advice to turn off the light when you leave the room makes a difference too. It is true that incandescent lights help to heat your house when it is cold outside, but most of the time it still makes sense to be conscientious about turning off the lights when you don't need them.

And there are other low hanging fruit. Air travel burns as much fuel per seat per km as an economy car. That's impressive when you consider that the aircraft travels 10 times as fast as an economy car, but would you really go to Vegas for the weekend if you had to drive 60 hours for the round trip? The convenience of air travel leads to waste because people over use it.

Ride your bike, use public transit (even if only occasionally), avoid idling needlessly in drive-throughs, turn out the lights, skip the frivolous plane trip, unplug your toaster. All off these things make a difference. None of them cost you very much to implement. Some will even save you money.

Edited September 12, 2014 by PakledHostage

[78stonewobble]

I think that Seret's point is that there are "low hanging fruit" around the house that don't require renovations to take advantage of. Things like unplugging appliances (like your toaster and wall warts) when you're not using them. These leach a surprisingly high amount of energy over the course of a year. And everyone's mother's advice to turn off the light when you leave the room makes a difference too. It is true that incandescent lights help to heat your house when it is cold outside, but most of the time it still makes sense to be conscientious about turning off the lights when you don't need them.

And there are other low hanging fruit. Air travel burns as much fuel per seat per km as an economy car. That's impressive when you consider that the aircraft travels 10 times as fast as an economy car, but would you really go to Vegas for the weekend if you had to drive 60 hours for the round trip? The convenience of air travel leads to waste because people over use it.

Ride your bike, use public transit (even if only occasionally), avoid idling needlessly in drive-throughs, turn out the lights, skip the frivolous plane trip, unplug your toaster. All off these things make a difference. None of them cost you very much to implement. Some will even save you money.

Well I do come from a family, where we'd rather bump into things than turn on the light in the evening.

The point still stands, stop making life decisions and/or prioritisations for other people. Just because person X can give up on A, because X thinks A is unimportant, does not mean A is unimportant to everyone else.

Ie. I wanna travel, you can stop having kids... Is no more or less valid than, I wanna have kids, you stop travelling.

But you are offcourse right... I'm sure most people could save alot of energy on things, that they, in reality, don't want or need. However... people are different and people deserve to seek whatever it is that are important to them.

[PakledHostage]

The point still stands, stop making life decisions and/or prioritisations for other people. Just because person X can give up on A, because X thinks A is unimportant, does not mean A is unimportant to everyone else.

I never said you should do all of those things all the time. I sometimes drive. I sometimes use the drive-through. I sometimes take a plane trip. But I also ride my bike 100 km a week commuting to work. And I unplug my toaster. And I bought an econobox car rather than the sporty model the salesman tried to push on me. Sure I use more energy than people in the third world (or "off-the-grid hippies"), but I try to be conscientious about my carbon footprint. That's all I am saying.

Most people can probably find ways to reduce their own impact by 10-20%. If everyone did that, we'd go a long way to reducing the amount of C0₂ we put into the atmosphere each year. Soon enough, we're going to have to get used to using less energy per capita, anyway. It doesn't cost anything to start reducing your impact now, in ways that don't affect your quality of life. Heck, some energy saving efforts may even improve your quality of life.

[Wanderfound]

And you don't think it has any enviromental and/or human effects to produce, deploy and maintain the around ie. 5.000.000 windturbines and/or 100.000.000 square meters worth of solar panels, needed to supply the world with renewable energy? Not to mention the 8.550.000.000 tonnes of "molten salts", if we pick that for energy storage or god knows how much hydrogen storage (because that never blows up), if we want to use light in the evening.

Aww, you made a straw dolly just for me.

You need some practice at doing it, though; that one doesn't look much like me at all.

It's a pipedream.

To replace coal/oil/gas with renewable energy on a large scale is megaprojects on a scale that makes it as unlikely in the short term as fusion.

As linked above.:

http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands

Anyway, I'm out of this before I lose my temper and invoke the wrath of mods. The science is known; it's the politics that are in dispute. That sort of discussion is better done at http://www.realclimate.org than here.

[micha]

As linked above.:

http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands

Nowhere in that article does it mention any realistic available-now grid-level storage technology, let alone one which is cheap enough to be commercially viable. Furthermore it only compares wind/solar against fossil-fuel powered energy generation, which I think everybody can agree on that it must be phased out, and quickly.

IMHO the only tech we have -right now- (and, sadly, have had for ~50 years) which can replace fossil fuel powered base load generation is standard fission. Which isn't great either, but it is a lot better than coal.

For tomorrow, who knows? Combination of wind/solar/tidal/whatever along with workable and cheap storage tech? Fusion? Thorium fission? The fact is, these are all being researched and the best will win out.

But the real fight, right now, is to turn off the damned coal, oil, and gas plants. The incumbents are laughing their asses off at the fighting between the renewables and nuclear camps.

[Seret]

Yeah, uhm... My parents live in a house built in 1930, there are limits to how much you can "tweak" a house like that, without ruining it's aesthetics. I live in an apartment from 1966, where atleast the isolation of my outer wall is at most 1 cm. of ... well whatever crap they had available back then

Actually houses of that vintage can get some really good results. My place is from 1947, houses of that age are often really leaky, sorting the air tightness is extremely cheap and gets amazing results. Things like uninsulated suspended wooden floors are easy to seal air tight and can be insulated for not much more effort. Loft insulation can be upgraded, windows replaced, and even walls can have insulation added (cavity fill/internal/external). I'd totally recommend looking at air tightness first though.

Older places will never perform as well as a well insulated new build, but you can get big percentage improvements. You can save a lot of electricity through just being a bit cunning too. I'm a big fan of putting things on timers so they automatically turn off overnight. Being green doesn't have to mean making an extra effort. The lazy way often works just as well.

[78stonewobble]

Aww, you made a straw dolly just for me.

You need some practice at doing it, though; that one doesn't look much like me at all.

As linked above.:

http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands

Anyway, I'm out of this before I lose my temper and invoke the wrath of mods. The science is known; it's the politics that are in dispute. That sort of discussion is better done at http://www.realclimate.org than here.

None of those sites address the challenges in replacing large parts of our existing electrical and heat infrastructure with some as vague as grid something.

Or something as basic as this, one of the few solar powerplants that can store and thus supply energy at night uses 28.500 tonnes of salt (sodium and potassium nitrate) for 50 megawatts. Extrapolated to the entire worlds energy supply, that efficiency would require 8.550.000.000 tonnes of those salts... Which unless we switch the entire worlds production of something over to it (then it might be possible in 20 years), but if we stick to ie. 5 percent it would probably take hundreds of years to produce the massive amounts needed.

Solarpanels and windmills has become cheaper, because large factories have sprung up and are pumping them out by the dozen and we've learned how to build em more efficiently. However it does not mean, that they magically stop requiring ressources or doesn't require transportation (which pollutes), maintenance, kill off birds or screw up massive amounts of areas.

PS: Please note, that I didn't call it alternative energy, but renewable.

PPS: To quote from real climate: "Climate science from climate scientists" ... They might be impartial, or they might not be.

[78stonewobble]

Actually houses of that vintage can get some really good results. My place is from 1947, houses of that age are often really leaky, sorting the air tightness is extremely cheap and gets amazing results. Things like uninsulated suspended wooden floors are easy to seal air tight and can be insulated for not much more effort. Loft insulation can be upgraded, windows replaced, and even walls can have insulation added (cavity fill/internal/external). I'd totally recommend looking at air tightness first though.

Older places will never perform as well as a well insulated new build, but you can get big percentage improvements. You can save a lot of electricity through just being a bit cunning too. I'm a big fan of putting things on timers so they automatically turn off overnight. Being green doesn't have to mean making an extra effort. The lazy way often works just as well.

Yeah, they allready did that a long time ago, better insulation, new energy windows which fit the style of the house and uses, well mostly for economics, woodpellets for heating. So yeah I agree there can be done quite a bit in old places, since they... well allmost literally have the most holes.

But there are limits as to what can be done.

[magnemoe]

And you don't think it has any enviromental and/or human effects to produce, deploy and maintain the around ie. 5.000.000 windturbines and/or 100.000.000 square meters worth of solar panels, needed to supply the world with renewable energy? Not to mention the 8.550.000.000 tonnes of "molten salts", if we pick that for energy storage or god knows how much hydrogen storage (because that never blows up), if we want to use light in the evening.

It's a pipedream.

To replace coal/oil/gas with renewable energy on a large scale is megaprojects on a scale that makes it as unlikely in the short term as fusion.

My argument too, as a supplement yes, as i said if you combine with hydro you don't need storage.

And yes the most fun part is that lawfare holding up construction of wind farms.

One renewable source I would like to use in geothermal in Yellowstone. should be possible to extract many gigawatt where. For some reason its highly unlikely

[lajoswinkler]

First of all, Yellowstone is a national park and thus protected from industrialization. Second, it is a highly unstable part of land. Geothermal power plants are to be built in stable layers, otherwise we could just use any mellow volcano out there. Sadly, we can't. The ground shifts, pipes break, acidic gases corrode them and you can't expect to place pipes made of noble metals.

There are very few places in the world where geothermal energy can be tapped as a serious source. Mostly it's just for heating water in smaller communities which is ok for the community, but negligible for a production of energy in one country.

[magnemoe]

First of all, Yellowstone is a national park and thus protected from industrialization. Second, it is a highly unstable part of land. Geothermal power plants are to be built in stable layers, otherwise we could just use any mellow volcano out there. Sadly, we can't. The ground shifts, pipes break, acidic gases corrode them and you can't expect to place pipes made of noble metals.

There are very few places in the world where geothermal energy can be tapped as a serious source. Mostly it's just for heating water in smaller communities which is ok for the community, but negligible for a production of energy in one country.

Yellowstone was a joke, did not know it was too unstable for using to geothermal. Think only island uses in in huge scale however its used for heating many places as heating don't require more than 70 degree.

[EndOfTheEarth]

I still want to see comprehensive results from OCO. Percentages in meteorology mean more when backed up by a model.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/