Could new public-private network lead to better climate science?

Could new public-private network lead to better climate science?

Summary: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (which is getting a bit-time workout this winter) has joined forces with Earth Networks, the company that announced in January that it is creating a greenhouse gas emissions tracking network in collaboration with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Earth Networks, which used to be known as AWS Convergence Technologies, is the company behind the Weatherbug service.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Networking
9

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (which is getting a bit-time workout this winter) has joined forces with Earth Networks, the company that announced in January that it is creating a greenhouse gas emissions tracking network in collaboration with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Earth Networks, which used to be known as AWS Convergence Technologies, is the company behind the Weatherbug service.

The terms of this latest partnership call for NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) to use data collected via the Earth Networks Global Observation Network to help "advance climate science." The network will initially collect carbon dioxide and methane gas information with more than 100 sensors deployed around the world. At least $25 million will be invested over the next five years in the technology underlying this network, according to the initial announcement.

Earth Networks and NOAA say that the ESRL will use the data collected by the new network to contribute to ongoing environmental research. In exchange, Earth Networks will use gas calibration technique standards from NOAA in order to make sure that they match up with other meterological collection standards. Here's the rationale for the partnership, as stated in the press release, from James Butler, director of the global monitoring division with NOAA ESRL.

"The Earth Networks Greenhouse Gas Observation Network will provide a significant increase to the density of atmospheric observations for evaluating emissions and uptake of greenhouse gases, thus it could enable tighter application scales and greater certainty of information products. This effort, properly coordinated with NOAA's global network, would aid in enhancing research and developing applications to better understand the regional-scale behavior of atmospheric constituents that drive climate change."

I have said before that I, personally, don't have a position on the causes of climate change but I do think the more information we can collect about emissions the better because it will give us an idea of what to expect. It could also help make the "ozone" alerts that some major U.S. cities have started issuing during the summer months much more specific and quantifiable. Then again, we all know that the weather is awfully hard to track and predict sometimes. Why should greenhouse gases be any different?

Topic: Networking

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

9 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Climate Change: Give us your liberty and your money ...

    ... and we'll tell you how to live your life, in order to be safe. Oh, and we'll also need your first born. Please! The Climate Change scam is one of greatest potential dangers to individual liberty, and we should be seeing to its dismantling, not encouraging its growth. These imbeciles predicted a warm Winter, <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkzNmWlCig8>when astrophysicists from the UK predicted correctly, based on Sun activity, that we would be freezing our tails off</a>.

    If liberals had gotten their way, they would have sold the right of the U.S. to self-determination, and made its citizens slaves to the will of a governing, unelected world body, who would be ordering us how to live our lives, for the supposed sake of our world climate. The thing is, if you were to tell the above to some liberals, they would say, "So what's wrong with that?"
    P. Douglas
    • RE: Could new public-private network lead to better climate science?

      @P. Douglas

      How do you get your teeth, body and car done, since you obviously can't trust dentists, doctors and mechanics. Do you stay shivering in your bunker, because all the liberal people with education are out to get you and the scientists are really the stormtroopers of the new world order?

      It's amazing how some people will believe Glenn Beck yet not a qualified scientist with years of research under their belt. If it wasn't so sad it's be funny.

      I'm sorry guys, take off the tinfoil hats and try and listen to people who know a lot more than you - the evidence is in and no matter how many grants oil companies put out to try and get corrupt scientists to publish denials, it just doesn't matter.

      What the hell are you luddites doing in a tech blog anyway?
      tonymcs@...
  • RE: Could new public-private network lead to better climate science?

    Excellent. It's been my opinion that we really need to get as much info as we can, as the info we have right now simply isn't enough.

    This is one science that has been suffering from a lack of conclusive information for a long time, and I'm glad to see we're taking steps to fix it.

    . . . but CO2 and Methane samples aren't gonna cut it. I sincerely hope we're recording a lot more than that.
    CobraA1
  • Still trying to prove a lie

    I cannot believe the gullibility of people even after the "scientists" that falsified data to fit their theories people are still carrying on about climate change and global warming get over it people and spend your time and money on something that doesn't enrich Al Gore and his ilk!
    wizardb@...
  • EPA vs USA Energy Independence

    KNOWLEDGE IS POWER ONLY IF YOU ACT ON IT: CALL CONGRESS AND DEMAND THEY REIGN IN THE EPA AND PASS AN AMERICAN ENERGY POLICY THAT DEVELOPS AND UTILIZES AMERICAN COAL, NATURAL GAS AND OIL:
    http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

    Where does the EPA derive authority to declare CO2 a pollutant? Copenhagen was a failure. Global warming caused by manmade hot house gases is not proven science. And the majority of Americans said no to Cap & Trade. Are we going to allow Obama to utilize the EPA to bulldoze the will of the majority again? If we allow this everyone will pay more for goods and services!

    ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

    The FED has doubled the money supply by printing fiat dollars backed by nothing. When OPEC sees the value of the dollar drop they raise the price per barrel and the price of gas at the pump goes up.

    But lower prices and American energy independence are possible if we burn America?s coal and natural gas.

    Why do we accept a 600 billion trade deficit with OPEC each year when America has 200- 300 years worth of natural gas and 1/4th the world's coal reserves?

    Government policy based on the New World Order ?Green? religion is the sole barricade to American energy independence. The doctrine of global warming maintains the status quo for OPEC and big oil; despite the fact the American people have rejected Cap & Trade.

    The German economy relied on coal gas during the Second World War as petroleum shortages forced Nazi Germany to develop the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce synthetic fuel for aircraft and tanks.

    South Africa has no significant oil reserves, and relies on coal for most of its oil production. The country has a highly developed synthetic fuels industry, as well as small deposits of oil and natural gas.

    Sasol has been operating the Sasol-Lurgi fixed bed coal gasification process for more than fifty years, and with ninety seven units in operation still remains the world's largest commercial application of this technology.

    Some economic models suggest gas from coal can compete when oil sells for $55 or more per barrel. Currently oil is approximately $100 a barrel.

    India and China are demanding more oil every year because their economies are growing. Instead of competing for past peak OPEC oil, America should utilize coal and natural gas to declare energy independence, create American jobs and improve our balance of trade.

    And it makes a lot more sense to convert America's fleet to natural gas than to push electric cars with limited range. But creating an infrastructure to charge electric cars will require more coal fired electric generation. Only coal fired plants can be built quickly enough. Nuclear plants will take years to bring online.

    Waste Management Inc. will begin conversion of its diesel trash-hauling fleet in Vancouver later this year to compressed natural gas. The company estimates savings of 35-to-45 per cent in fuel costs

    Declaring American energy independence will free the USA from spending trillions on foreign wars and financing the terrorists who brought us 911. Can you imagine how many lives could have been saved and how much better America?s economy would be if the 1 trillion spent in Iraq had been spent in the USA?

    Global warming caused by man is not proven science despite all the government grants money doled out for the creation of supporting data! One wonders how many global cooling theories could have been purchased for the same grant money.

    And China is not surpassing America in clean energy development. It derives less than 1% of its energy from alternate sources. But China does utilize all of its coal and natural gas resources and has recently signed a 50 billion dollar deal to import coal from Australia and is attempting similar contract with American coal companies in the Powder River Basin.

    Hypocrisy: How will exporting coal to China from the US and Australia instead of burning it in America reduce CO2 or global warming?

    http://www.alternet.org/environment/148983/energy_companies'_big_plans_to_exploit_the_american_west_to_feed_china's_insatiable_appetite_for_coal/
    Repeal
  • What is being proposed with that &quot;new network&quot; is not real science...

    The intentions from the new studies is to gather information about CO2 emissions and methane, and to then correlate that with other data, and then, voila!, climate "science" will undoubtedly conclude, once again, that "global warming" is real and is being caused by man through his many uses of petro-based fuels. Those studies are already tainted by the mere fact that, they'll be concentrating of CO2 and methane.<br><br>They don't need a study. We know way ahead of time what the conclusions will be, and they'll be just the same as the old studies, but with the "new" and "improved" CO2 studies tossed into the mix.<br><br>If those "scientists" were truly intent on studying the climate, they wouldn't be concentrating on CO2 emissions or any man-made machinery or any other thing that uses fossil-fuels. Those "scientists" would be studying the entire array of what causes weather and climate changes. Climate is about millions of variables, including the sun, the stars, extra-terrestrial radiation, the position of the planets, volcanoes (on land and underwater), earthquakes (which alter landscapes with new land formations and shifting of land), clouds, plant and animal emissions, and thousands and perhaps millions of other variables. The fact is that, there isn't a system of studies or a computer model which can even begin to put those millions of variables into an analysis algorithm in order to arrive at any kind of decent results or conclusions. <br><br>The biggest indicator of what direction the "new network" study will take is, the pre-judgment that, CO2 is the culprit and it's where the study should concentrate. That's arriving at a conclusion before the study has even begun.<br><br>No thanks! The "global warming" junk scientists are at it again, and they never learned their lessons.<br><br>But, undoubtedly, the "skeptics" (as the junk scientists like to call them) will be around to debunk the junk science all over again.
    adornoe
  • What is being proposed with that &quot;new network&quot; is not real science...

    The intentions from the new studies is to gather information about CO2 emissions and to then correlated that with other data, and then, voila!, climate "science" will undoubtedly conclude, once again, that "global warming" is being caused by man through his many uses of petro-based fuels. The study is meant simply to create the illusion that "science" was conducted and that, once again, climate scientists should be listened to when they issue their warnings and "studies".

    They don't need a study. We know way ahead of time what the conclusions will be, and they'll be just the same as the old studies, but with the "new" and "improved" CO2 studies tossed into the mix.

    If those "scientists" were truly intent on studying the climate, they wouldn't be concentrating on CO2 emissions or any man-made machinery or any other thing that uses fossil-fuels. Those "scientists" would be studying the entire array of what causes weather and climate changes. Climate is about millions of variables, including the sun, the stars, extra-terrestrial radiation, the position of the planets, volcanoes (on land and underwater), earthquakes (which alter land formations), clouds, plant and animal emissions, and thousands and perhaps millions of other variables. The fact is that, there isn't a system of studies or a computer model which can even begin to put those millions of variables into an analysis algorithm in order to arrive at any kind of decent results or conclusions.

    The biggest indicator of what direction the "new network" study will take is, the pre-judgment that, CO2 is the culprit and it's where the study should concentrate. That's arriving at a conclusion before the study has even begun.

    No thanks! The "global warming" junk scientists are at it again, and they never learned their lessons.

    But, undoubtedly, the "skeptics" (as the junk scientists like to call them) will be around to debunk the junk science all over again.
    adornoe
  • GIGO

    Garbage In, Garbage Out

    The issues in "Climate Science" are not about alliances and such. It is entirely about bad data. When a small town in central Wisonsin is 500 degrees Fahrenheit according to the so-called neutral government data collectors, and when a man at the center of much, much controversy refuses to give up his raw data, when the entire brigade of 'global warming climate scientists' refuse to give up their raw data and their methods of adjustment, then the rotten smell of intellectual fraud is strong in the air.

    Until AGW, the Piltdown Man of climate, is acknowledged for the scam it is, then nothing truly scientific will be presented to the public.
    wizardjr
  • Climates don't care what we believe

    390 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today as best we can measure worldwide. So much for 350.org. We may have passed the point where running a carbon neutral economy can have noticeable effect. We're sort of hoping the carbon dioxide sits and warms th world a bit because the alternative is to get it rapidly absorbed into a surprisingly acidic ocean.
    epcraig