Cuts could reverberate internationally
Continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2, carbon monoxide and methane form the backbone of NOAA's monitoring network. They are collected at the agency's six observatories -- in Hawaii, Alaska, Greenland, Antarctica, American Samoa and California -- and seven tall towers scattered across the United States.
NOAA supplements those measurements with air samples collected regularly in flasks on the ground and in the air, which provide information about a broader range of gases and help expand geographic coverage that helps scientists understand local variations in greenhouse gas output.
The majority of the monitoring sites are run by "volunteers" who submit samples and data to NOAA at no cost. At other sites, the agency must pay for measurements -- like air samples collected in flasks during regular flights of small, private planes at 15 U.S. sites.
Those pay-to-play sites were first on the chopping block when the recent budget cuts began. Now, with NOAA managers anticipating a 5 percent budget reduction in fiscal 2013, scientists in and out of the agency say they're worried that the greenhouse gas monitoring program will be forced to cut personnel.
Many say they're concerned that if NOAA's program continues to shrink, monitoring efforts in other countries could suffer. In addition to operating the largest global network measuring greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, NOAA maintains standards that ensure other countries doing similar work are of high quality and in compatible formats.
The U.S. effort has served as a model -- and a continuing reference -- for programs in Europe, China, India and Brazil.
And with a new generation of CO2-monitoring satellites now in development, ensuring the continuation of ground-based measurements of greenhouse gases has taken on new importance, experts said.
Satellite data 'wasted' without ground monitoring
Japan's GOSAT, now in orbit, and NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, still in development, are designed to provide regular measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide in places ground measurements have not reached.
According to recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences and JASON, an independent group of scientists that advises the government, that kind of satellite coverage will be crucial to determine whether individual nations comply with emissions cuts outlined in future climate pacts.
But satellites cannot supplant ground-based monitoring networks, said Sander Houweling, an atmospheric scientist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands who helped organize the Science letter.
"In the foreseeable future, it is not going to be like that," Houweling said. "With measurements from satellites, we have to learn how to make sure they are on the same scale as ground-based measurements. In the current phase, we are exploring how to make use of measurements taken from space."
Canadell of the Global Carbon Project agreed. "This is not threatening the need for these atmospheric, high-precision measurements," he said. "To the contrary, it makes them even more critical. Otherwise, these hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on every single satellite get wasted."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentIt is all about priorities in times of limited resources. NOAA is playing games by shutting dowm the stations to try to get additional funding when they could have cut costs in other areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet used to it. The ostriches who ignore the almost 16 trillion dollar federal debt are getting a wake up call in all facets of government spending...and these are nothing compared to what is yet to come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS Federal funding of science is going to be decimated. Fewer 'formal' science dollars is just a tip of a larger iceberg of cutbacks looming. Most of it will be indirect through cuts in Military weapons projects, Health research, etc.
Cutting research dollars has always been a false path to a better economy. This is the true "head in the sand" stance. Restoring taxes to their proper levels will do a much better job of sustaining the economy and solve the budget deficits than these types of cuts. Climate data is necessary to all our efforts to avert a global disaster far beyond the deficit impacts on the world's budgets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat;s the difference? The warmists report the data based on what they wish it was. Why give more money to "scientists" like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climate data is necessary to all our efforts to avert a global disaster far beyond the deficit impacts on the world's budgets."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy?...We already know that the end is nigh. Those 'models' have us all perishing a dozen times over from some disaster of global warming.
Cuts are no longer 'a choice'. The cookie jar is full of IOU's. There is no extra money hidden under the government's bed.
oh, look, we agree <g>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, regardless of anything, there will be cuts everywhere, even in science. Regardless of right or wrong.
As long as people don't forget that it is Bush jr who put the US in this situation. Obama is only trying to mend what Bush caused. Not that he is doing a perfect job of it, but I believe the other guy would have done even worse. And the new other guy promising zillion of jobs? He who became a multi-millionaire by killing US jobs? How ridiculous!
(BTW, why the Dems don't insist on who opened "Guano" or who got them in the wars or who bankrupted the country is something that amazes me every day.)
I see vitriol in many of these responses. I'm always sorry to see that. The organization referred to, BTW, is not one involved so much in modeling, but provides high quality, long-term observations and serves as the backbone of global monitoring networks for greenhouse gases, stratospheric ozone, ozone depleting gases, aerosols, and surface radiation. The scientific papers that come from these observations most often refute extreme claims on either end of the spectrum, but are welcome by all, since they fundamentally are grounded by high quality observations and cannot be refuted by arm waving and hyperbole. The letter in Science, written by Earth-system scientists from around the world, simply laments the decline in funding and the loss of observing systems and scientists as a result. Observations lost today cannot be obtained tomorrow. It's sad, because these observations are extremely cheap. For example, the funding for a recent, failed satellite launch would support this organization's measurements and research for 50+ years. One will never balance the federal budget, or come even close to it, by cutting this and other efficient organizations like it within government. Such cuts are the equivalent to cutting one's nose off to spite his face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NOAA has a huge budget but has put keeping the stations in question a lower priority to other expenses in their budget. The NOAA needs better management to be effective within the funds available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see many have 'ideas' about how to solve the issue but none of the authors seem willing to seek office to help realize these 'ideas'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just has to be someone else who needs advice.
Kind of funny.
I sense a more vaguely defined desire to just have
things work out OK so no one has to worry. Its called
American dismissiveness.
Can this be mitigated? Is it possible to bring political pressure to bear on those members of the House responsible for the cuts? Who are they? Which committees are responsible? Their members?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it's time to kick butt and take names. This is an EXTREMELY irresponsible move on the part of the politicians who've made the decisions.