Fantastic, a great new tool with which to stir the GW pot as brought to us by the agency that is nearly always behind in accurate forecasting. Or, rather, not really forecasting but "guesstimating" based upon their "ideas and theories". Sad that this will probably be given an increased sense of value since it comes from a government source.

I wonder if it will show all of the hot CO2 air emanating from Washington DC during the Gore hearings from a week ago. Probably not.

How do you explain the correlation between the variations in the earth's orbit (via. plantary gravitation pull) and temperature variation over history prior to man's combustion of fossil fuels?
I believe it was around 300 AC and 900 AC we had higher temperatures then we are seeing now way before anyone even discovered fossil fuel. Even as recently as the 1930's we saw our last small pattern peak very similar to 2006's peak. Then a forty year decline in temperature which many thought was the beginning of the next little ice age, even during the industrial worlds most torrid era of pollution.

If the whole world's population (6.5 billion) can fit in the land area of Texas with a living density similar to Paris, how can one logically believe CO2 from a few industrial nations with localized emission's relative to the surface area of the earth can effect the global climate?

It seems with the huge reserves of CO2 the earth natually has dwarfs the recent contribution of man's emmissions. Other conditions not controlled by man,like weather patterns (ie. warming , cooling, winds, currents, sun and earth relationship, precipitiation, volcanic activity and earthquakes by far could impact the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at any time. Beside the C02 model is new with no historical reference to deteremine what your seeing is bad or good. Therefore with no reference how could one decide what is going on. This science is obviously new and unproven yet everyone thinks because of the last 30 year(according to their lifetime memory) temperature increase can only be our fault. Perhaps people should look a little further back in history before making false assumptions not supported with proven science.

Man can't even accurately predict a single storm system let along global patterns!

"Carbontracker's potential is enormous. We are moving into an era where emissions could have a price tag" The only word in this which is incorrect is "could", "will" would have been more accurate. Our government is going to place sensors around as a way to increase tax revenue. The greenhouse effect will soon hit our wallet.

Congratulations to NOAA for the development of an important tool in tracking greenhouse gases globally. The climatologists appear to be shaking off their skeptic clothing and are getting involved in the discussion in a positive way. Note the Climatology models showing possible areas of climate "elimination" and the threat to species, including Man in those environments. A frightening proposition although one that may never take place with certainly.
But to those like "The Skeptic", these tools are of little use. Why track something that has no relevance? Something we have no power or desire to influence, because, apparently it's only in The Almighty's dominion? It's amazing how he and others ( GeoPeter or Peter Pan, whatever his name is) attack the GW Realists with such religious fervor (and with questionable petitions as well).
Well, NOAA, a government agency no less, believes that the future of this planet and Mankind depends in part on Carbon in the atmosphere, human-induced, not G-d given.

Again, I'm having trouble understanding why believing CO2 emissions are almost completely caused by sources other than man(real, provable sources like volcanoes, for example) automatically has to make someone a religious fanatic; where exactly is the mention of God here??? Since when are volcanoes, sunspots & the like NOT the natural CO2-emitting solar-system occurrences that they are, but either man-made or "God" made??? If some people want to believe "God made", fine, but WHY do we ALL have to be lumped into the "ultra religious fanatic" assumption??? Can any pro-AGWer at least debate this issue LOGICALLY(rather than at a 4th-grade name-calling level)???

I think this is a good thing. More equipment, more data collection, more analysis means better information instead of running about like chicken little. I know I keep saying this but more than 20 years worth of factual data is needed to make logical decisions about climate changes.

If scientists are dating impact craters from comets and asteroids at over 200 million years ago that alone gives one an idea how old this planet is. So...how many weather and climate changes do you suppose has taken place in that 200 million year time frame? How many species have been made extinct and reborn due to climate changes in that 200 million period. I'm sorry there are too many variables to be basing climate change on just 20, 30 or even 50 years of data. As a species we are still new to this planet and have a lot to learn.

If it was only easy for the two sides that are studying climate changes to stop mouthing off on who's THEORIES correct, put aside political stuff and get to the work of logical science then maybe we'd be better off. Not everything has to be a political debate if we have come to this as our logic for everything then you can kiss humanity goodbye.

David:

Congrats on taking the topic down an entirely different bent that really has nothing to do with the data at hand.

Two comments though come to mind. First, the climatologists are not necessarily the skeptics you make them out to be since they are the ones who often brought up the issues revolving around CO2. Second, most skeptics, including me, do not attack AGW proponents with religious fervor as much as we like to bring up points that do not make much sense inthe arguments. I admit that some solely go the "out of man's dominion" argument, but it is hardly a large number.

This tool seems to be predicated on dissiminating vast amounts of data that can really only be generated through the use of assumptive estimating, hence, it's real world value is questionable at best, deceiving at worst.

Brian,
You hit the nail on the head. I can just imagine that some committe member in Congress is all smiles. Yet another source of revenue for goverment.

Okay, maybe I took too much liberty in bringing up the possibility that religion played some role in this discussion. I thought I'd have a little fun late at night when I wrote the comments. Actually, I'm surprised that religion hasn't been mentioned, since in the US, politics and religion are frequently close partners.
Regarding "Skeptics", I think the terminlolgy is confusing. Does a Skeptic assert that GW doesn't exist, is not man-made, or the effects are overblown,etc? If I'm skeptical of the Skeptic's intentions or dogma, am I then a Skeptic?
Anyway, let me state my current position on GW. I believe that it IS prmarily human generated, it's long term effects will be devastating to the climate and world species, although NO ONE knows exactly how, and that the longer we, the world, wait to deal with it, the harder to reverse the process. It will take more than fuzzy data and math to convince me otherwise.
Finally, I believe that the only relationship of GW to G-d, is that He (or She) gave us the intelligence to protect the earth from climate and environmental destruction. It's time we used it!

CO2,

It's the sun, I hate to sound so abrasive, but a group of substantially more educated people have shown there is a direct correlation to the sun and climate change than CO2 has ever shown.

If it where CO2, then the next volcano would warm the planet substantially. I've read some research that estimates the CO2 release from a small volcano to that of 20 - 40 years of man and animals.

Most of the Climatology experts have cherry picked science to make a case. They won't even address data like this or some of the other posts that have been presented here. Why? They have their own political agenda. Their defense against any of these studies, are to say their research has been sponsored by oil companies.

If CO2 was so bad, why in the heck does Al Gore used 10x more energy than the average American household?

Why oh why are people so insane about this subject, the earth is cooler now than it was in the early middle ages, let alone we've come out of the "Mini Ice Age", of course there will be climate change, there always has been and always will be.

David:

Thanks for the comment. I believe we all take a bit of liberty in the discussion at some point or other. Just to assuage your concern, politics and religion are only bedfellows when people are running for office, or their opponent wants to make a mountain out of a molehill. Otherwise, it never is really discussed with much seriousness.

As far as skeptics, you hit the nail on the head. They can be skeptical of all of it or just parts and that is what is so interesting about the argument. You are not a skeptic even if you are skeptical of the skeptic. Say that five times fast. As you mention, AGW proponents generally speaking believe in all of the the different fates related to warming. And that is my concern as a skeptic. How could all of the problems develop to present the worst case scenario? Nothing really happens that way and the fact that you do not question any of it confuses me. I question some of the things stated on the skeptical side merely because they are not logical given the evidence.
Though a skeptic, I still wonder and have to have a logical explanation for the evidence.

Since you mention that man is primarily responsible, I have but one question. Do humans produce and consume an amount of energy that comes anywhere close to what is created and consumed naturally?

If anyone wants to get in on the ground floor of the next get rich idea start looking at companies that deal in carbon credits/trading. This carbon tracker tool's main mission will be to set carbon prices for the stock market. Just watch.

Darren,

The answer I can give to your question is yes and no. Yes, natural energy is produced in much greater quantity "naturally." Carbon Dioxide is the ultimate waste product exhaled into the air and no doubt becomes more of a concern as the population increases. Same is true regarding methane produced from excrement. This natural production is unavoidable and the atmosphere could probably handle this for hundreds of more years at a minimun. Overpopulation will have more immediate and serious complications other than Global Warming, but it is undeniable that the larger the population, the more energy production, both "natural" and industrial.

On the No side of the ledger is the massuve volume of poor quality Carbon products produced by automobiles, coal power, forest fires and the like. That is what is hastening GW, ie GW is probably occuring several hundred years earlier than would have been naturally expected. After all, major climate changes of threatening proportion take place more likely in thousand, not hundred year increments (Middle Ages not withstanding).

Finally, add the progressive reduction of wetlands, grasses and trees, Nature's antidote to Carbon, and we have accelerated GW. Note that most of this is directly or indirectly tied to human factors. And most are viscious cycles, ie, positive feedback cycles that could be halted in the long term only be "natural" reductions in Greenhouse gases ( mass population decline d/t famine, war, weather,etc ) or more hopefully, by governmental action from the large producing countries.

And, by the way, development of clean energy sources, cautious population management and large scale planting is not only beneficial to the environment, but also economically and politically. In fact, it's also just plain exciting!

David:

Thanks for the reply. By your answer, I can tell that you are more on the environmental side of the topic than the AGW side. This lets me know that if, say, green grass was seen as only being a product of the industrialization of mankind, and seen as a bad thing environmentally, I would guess that many AGW proponents would be against it. By the way, grass as we have it here in the states is not truly a natural thing.

As I have said many times in the past, the only thing that matters in the atmosphere is energy in versus energy out. The contribution of CO2 is miniscule at best scientifically but great when considered in the context of politics and environmentalists.

Want to know what really is causing GW? It ain't CO2, it ain't water vapor from burning fossil fuels, it ain't the lack of clouds from a decrease in pollution, it ain't the removal of trees or grasslands, and it ain't the sun, it's the heat sinks we have created being in close proximity to temp guages combined with our increased ability to measure temperature more accurately. The science is wagging the dog as it were.

Regarding CO2 emissions that we hear about 24/7, I realize most people cannot grasp this concept because CO2 is invisible! There's a solution for everything!

I believe our federal government should 'require', for a one-month period each year, that all oil and oil-based fuels are to be laced with a harmless black dye! This will allow each and every one of us to visibly see CO2 emissions!! Just imagine every car, motorcycle, truck, construction equipment, farm implement, train, bus, factory, airplane, military vehicle, power plant, lawnmower, and weedeater spewing black soot??!!

If this does not heighten the discussion about CO2 emissions, then gawd help us...

We need a CO2 Awareness Month...