NOAA scientists unveil online emissions-tracking tool

Now We Can Watch Them Go Up

The U.S. might not be ready to cut its carbon emissions, but it's ready to measure them. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has unveiled a nifty new online tool that tracks carbon dioxide levels around the world. And guess what it's called? CarbonTracker. We're in love! "This is a pretty exciting opportunity," deadpanned NOAA's head of research, Richard Spinrad, adding that the tool "will provide a fundamental ground truth about climate." While NOAA is still working out kinks and gathering data, the agency's long-term hope is that the tracker will reflect data from thousands of global sampling stations and give accurate carbon counts down to the city level. Researchers are also working on a way to differentiate carbon generated naturally from the kind spewed when fossil fuels burn. "If [NOAA] can do this, the effects would be remarkable," said John Drexhage of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. "At least it means we can have an honest discussion."

straight to the source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, Associated Press, Randolph E. Schmid, 22 Mar 2007

straight to the source: Reuters, 22 Mar 2007

straight to the source: USA Today, Dan Vergano, 21 Mar 2007

straight to the cool new tool: NOAA CarbonTracker

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

The Slippery Slope

Not to say valuable information won't be gained, but the idea attempting to differentiate between human-produced and "natural" carbon sounds like a notion spawned in the war room of a Big Oil think-tank. After all, what's natural and what's not? Fire's natural, but as we speak there are fires in Southeastern Asia burning thousands of acres of peat bogs for development into Palm Oil plantations (Europe's popular biofuel), and in the process emitting an estimated 8% of total world "fossil fuel" emissions (Hooijer, Silvius, Wösten, Page, 2006). Depending on who's designing the categories, we could have some very misleading information on CO2 emissions and climate change... and another reason for the public to dismiss the warning signs.

by Braco415 at 10:12 AM on 24 Mar 2007

shoutout to my boys tracking the CO2 (ppm) at SMO

MALOOOO NOAA Tutuila station, American Samoa, Chuuu-hooooo!!! Keep those tuna in the sea, and those waters from rising!

Seriously though, this tool is fantastic. I can tell, even though I can't understand it. Even one click deep, I can't read many of the charts because I don't know what "fluxes" are. Some kind of unit of change. But not defined anywhere I can see.

Even when the units are clear, I have no idea what conclusion to draw from the graphs. Why measure the StDev of flux? Is this a display of validity of data, or are these results? It looks like urban areas have much higher StDev than desert areas. Does that mean anything? Is that expected? What? Huh?

The time series data seem to show the rise of C02 ppm over time. But the sites results seem to mostly focus is on 'flux.' Why? Public dialogue has mostly focused on net rise, not on the carbon flux. Is there a reason that we should be focused on the flux instead? Confused...

The tool is for policy makers, and "the community." I wonder.. policy makers aren't generally weather scientists, and neither are most journalists. Could be worth NOAAs time to invest in some laymens versions of the results... and a much bigger and badder FAQ and Glossary. Clear communication would help speed the dissemination of these results from the PhDs to the policy makers/voters/consumers.

by Mmimika at 8:30 AM on 26 Mar 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?