Satellite Captures Glowing Plants From Space

sciencehabit writes About 1% of the light that strikes plants is re-emitted as a faint, fluorescent glow—a measure of photosynthetic activity. Today, scientists released a map of this glow as measured by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, a NASA satellite launched in July with the goal of mapping the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The map reveals that tropical rainforests near the equator are actively sucking up carbon, while the Corn Belt in the eastern United States, near the end of its growing season, is also a sink. Higher resolution fluorescence mapping could one day be used to help assess crop yields and how they respond to drought and heat in a changing climate.

Comments

NASA link

[Dan East]

Here is a higher resolution version of the map:
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/p...

I live in an orange area of the US, and it's not the "corn belt" either, but the Appalachians.

Re:NASA link

[MightyYar]

Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!

Re:NASA link

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they would be looking on fluorescence, algae under even a few feet of water might be harder to detect??

Re:NASA link

[David_Hart]

Thanks for the high-res version. Is there some technical reason that they omit the ocean data? I would think the oceans have quite a bit of photosynthetic activity!

I can only guess that fluorescent glow from algae, sea weed, etc. would be diffused in the water so much that it wouldn't get picked up on satellite. If you notice, they picked up the islands but not much from the surrounding ocean. In addition, ground based plants tend to be denser than water based.

Re:NASA link

[Beat The Odds]

Here is a higher resolution version of the map: http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/p...

I live in an orange area of the US, and it's not the "corn belt" either, but the Appalachians.

We all know that the orange area is in Florida and not the Appalachians.

Misleading Headline

[rossdee]

Sounds like the start of The Andromeda Strain

Re:Misleading Headline

[mcmonkey]

Word.

The capture is from space, not the plants.

Re:Better idea

[Noah Haders]

holding your breath produces MORE carbon because it gives more time for lung tissue to absorb the O2 and release the CO2.

Re:Supox

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't my comment, but I object to the down-mod! It was a nice reference.

Rain forest

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the outcry over what Brazil, Indonesia, central Africa and other areas are doing to tropical rain forests? There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.

Re:Rain forest

[Jstlook]

There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.

Now, the thing that gets under my skin about your mentality is this:
As an American, I recognize that American philosophy is very commercilized, very liberal-thinking, and very consumerist in general.
What I respect about the outrage over people actively producing carbon is that it encourages people to take some ownership of their choices and actions.
What I cannot respect about the outrage that people have regarding the destruction of these tropical rain forests (or anything, really, for that matter) is this:

1) The outraged people have no legal, ethical, moral, or social ties to the things in question.
2) The outraged people have no understanding regarding the political, economic, or social climate of the area in question.
3) The countries in question are certainly approaching their land with a simple cost-benefit analysis in mind. If they can get something out of what's there to get ahead, why shouldn't they?

Now, don't get me wrong. I heard a statistic the other day that 26% of man-made CO2 production comes directly from these rain forests being decimated (source completely forgotten and thus heresay, my apologies). I'm pretty sure that Americans may get close to that figure, but I doubt they actually exceed that. Encouraging another continent to be more responsible for their planet would be cool, but lets not forget the struggle those continents are going through right now. The four horsemen seem to be beating a pretty steady drum there; you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves? Admirable, simply admirable, in your arrogance and ignorance.

To that end, becoming the stewards of our planet truly seems our burden to bear; that we might shoulder some of their responsibility to the degree which they are obviously unable, so that they as a continent might be able to gain a somewhat more steady footing among their peers, the other continents.

If you really want them to stop destroying the land that protects our planet, outrage over their actions certainly isn't going to accomplish diddly squat; you're going to have to change the equation. They're currently decimating the rain forests because it benefits them to do so. I would be very surprised if they had very many other apparent options that enable competition in a global marketplace. I keep hearing 'think local' when it comes to sustainability, but, globalization certainly has some benefits too. That could enable us to put positive pressure on other continents and countries to follow our philosophies and moral standards, don't you think?

Re:Rain forest

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want them to stop destroying the land that protects our planet, outrage over their actions certainly isn't going to accomplish diddly squat; you're going to have to change the equation. They're currently decimating the rain forests because it benefits them to do so. I would be very surprised if they had very many other apparent options that enable competition in a global marketplace. I keep hearing 'think local' when it comes to sustainability, but, globalization certainly has some benefits too. That could enable us to put positive pressure on other continents and countries to follow our philosophies and moral standards, don't you think?

No, you're probably too young or stupid to remember when tropical deforestation was a major issue, at least at the same level as climate change is currently. The agitators, after years of fruitless effort and third world countries arresting, imprisoning and killing them, moved on to easier targets. The problem is real, still exists and will get worse. Note also; many of the loudest third world voices calling for "climate reparations" from "developed" countries are the very ones destroying the most tropical forest. If climate disruption is an existential threat, at what point does one decide that something more than yak-yak and bribes are needed?

Re:Rain forest

[Jstlook]

Fair enough. I'm too young and stupid to remember the past, congratulations on your observation. Do me a favor though, and clarify what you mean. You mean that the agitators are people complaining about tropical deforestation, or are people they the people perpetrating tropical deforestation? You weren't clear.

To be fair, I think my one of my points was very specifically that the countries most in need are in fact the ones most responsible for the tropical deforestation. To wit:

you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves?

My response to that idea was certainly *not* more talk or bribing. Perhaps you'd like me to simplify it, so I'll do you the favor. These countries interact choose to interact with developed countries because they seek to gain equal footing amongst their peers. The terms by which we engage this desire will absolutely control the behavior they exhibit. If you'd choose to bribe or talk to them, all you accomplish is playing at their level. Their behavior is all about tit-fot-tat / quid-pro-quo. Instead, if you no longer accept how they do business and instead require that they operate according to the principles that you dictate, then you can control more than simply the product you receive. Now, please don't forget that communication is always a two-way street; they must be happy with the terms mutually agreed upon. Like I said toward the tail-end of my argument: globalization certainly has some benefits in that regard.

I think its abysmal that the same people outraged about things such as tropical deforestation are also outraged at the idea of globalization. At the end of the day it simply doesn't make sense. If you want someone to work with you on something, it certainly isn't helpful to ostracize them. You simply can't include them into your circle for some things, and exclude them for others. That isn't the way society works.

P.S. I don't know about you, but I can't for an instant believe that bribing someone is going to encourage them to feel a part of your circle, or even that it would change their behavior at all. I'm more inclined to think they're going to give you more face time, and learn how to tell you want you want to hear. Course, that only works so for so long before they think they can start asking for reparations. Or something.

In addition to the huge green glow?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could not see any reference to the wavelength they are measuring, is that buried in the pay-walled article?

Re:In addition to the huge green glow?

[dsgrntlxmply]

Chlorophyll fluorescence tends to be deep red, say 680-740 nm.

Superfluous headline

[b.d.albarda]

Aren't all satellites in space? It's like saying 'submarine detects creatures under water'. Correct, informative headline should read 'Global photosynthesis measured by satellite using fluorescence'.

Re:The presumption is: carbon is bad...

[dave420]

You are the one apparently peddling nonsense. If you don't like the scientific method, stop using your computer now. You using it is hypocritical, if you are going to turn around and say the very method itself is intrinsically flawed. Either your computer works and there is indeed anthropogenic global warming, or your computer doesn't work and there isn't. You can't really have both.

I don't think it's 1%

[stooo]

Hi
I seriously doubt 1% of light is reemitted. A tree would give more light than a torch.

Re:I don't think it's 1%

[wonkey_monkey]

A tree would give more light than a torch.

How'd you work that out? Can't quite work out what you mean.

Re:I don't think it's 1%

[stooo]

it's simple : Direct sunlight is 1000W/m.
Let's say a tree is 1m direct to sun. In nighttime, it would emit 10w over it's surface. That's not realistic.

Re:I don't think it's 1%

[wonkey_monkey]

Let's say a tree is 1m direct to sun. In nighttime

Ah, but who said anything about nighttime?

Re:I don't think it's 1%

[dsgrntlxmply]

The emission is fluorescence. Some fraction of the incoming photons that get captured by the chlorophyll antenna system are absorbed, but have that energy re-radiated (at a somewhat longer wavelength after some energy loss) rather than having the energy used in photosynthesis or just absorbed and dissipated thermally. When the incident light stops, the fluorescence stops. The photosynthetic system can also emit a small amount of light after incident light stops (essentially run backwards, converting stored chemical energy back to photons), but that is not what is being measured here.

Re:Why bother?

[dave420]

Or we could just stick with the science, which has roundly demonstrated climate change, and pinned the cause on AGW. If people want to dissent and be taken seriously, they should publish papers in respected journals, as we as a society demand our scientists do. Giving equal time to people who are just spouting off nonsensical gut-feeling arguments or who are woefully ignorant of the data and the implications drawn therefrom, is only going to hurt us all.

So Much Desert...

[Thelasko]

Until I looked at this map, I had no idea so much of the planet was inhospitable. Basically all of the purple on the map is a desert, excluding a few places in the southern hemisphere where it was winter.