NOAA's new 'climate service' – not a sure thing yet

Gotta love what we are funding:
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/short-term-cooling-on-a-warming-planet
“Begs the question” – is it too much to expect them to use this logical fallacy correctly?

On their front page is “Climate change and Meningitis.” Oh my god the misinformation.

Looked at it earlier, why does the (incoming sunlight) solar output data stop in 2000?
Using patterns in The Natural variability of the weather, caused by Lunar Designational Tides, I have created a long term forecast for the next 4 years that seems to be kicking some Butt.
http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
Looks to me like I got the forecast for the S.E. USA weather for today right, when I put the forecast together three years ago. Let me know what you think…

… and why is the Navy weighing in on this? They took sails of the ships a while ago.

Cant dazzle anybody with the facts, so they have to create more BS?

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards

Same mantra again failing to properly inform the public that more people see disasters in their backyard because more people have the ocean as their backyard, or rivers, or having built on low-lying flood prone land, and so on. The storm numbers and severity are constant across time, the people and where they build and have built have made the change!
I wonder, do the re-insurers (AIG, for example) have NOAA in their pockets too? They want every person to pay for their mistakes made years ago.

This office had better be prepared for a deluge of FOIA requests. For starters, how about any documents developed by NOAA that prove of the following claims in the press release?
“More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives.”

Centralize the propoganda machine.
Get R done.
There is far too much research involved and the contol freaks want better control over the slush funds. Then they can write the reports before the studdy. (like Menne)

“Begs the question”
Yeah..they use charts from the Hadley CRU.
Ohh well…without another ministry of information I might become confused.
But between Carol Browner and Gary Locke I expect no less then KGB quality disinformation.

Correction: “no” should be “not”.

Ok I’m not American – so do US readers think this smacks of implementing an existing plan A – because ‘they’ never thought they would need a plan B? or, is this the Climategate response plan B? – to bolster the collapsing walls? We have a fully fledged Department for Energy and Climate Change here in old England, whose primary function seems to be to indoctrinate our children about the dangers of CO2 and shut down our reliable coal fired power stations (we have lots of coal here, like you do). Short of an armed revolution, I despair of our politicians admitting the thinness of the consensus AGW ‘science’ and allowing a realistic reassessment of our energy supply needs (when the wind doesn’t blow). Sorry to be down but the war isn’t won yet.

plenty of graphs in here…excerpt at end of piece:
GISS manipulates climate data in Mackay, (Queensland Australia)
By kenskingdom
Another Smoking Gun from Australia? How GISS adjusts temperature records in two adjacent sites
They are allowed this manipulation simply because GHCN has declared at some stage “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” (Te Kowai) to be a “small town”, with a population of 35,000. Exactly the same population as Mackay.
Well, actually it’s surrounded by cane fields which have not changed much for the last 130 years, is about 7 km from Mackay and 2.5km from the nearest suburb (Ooralea).
There are 2 or 3 buildings around it for the manager, greenhouses, and laboratories, and its population on a good day might be… 10.
This has allowed them to adjust its data, when other rural sites are not adjusted. It also allows them to NOT include the pre-1950 data from Te Kowai with the other rural stations, when adjusting Mackay’s data.
Why do I suspect this is deliberate? Because the Te Kowai GHCN data ends in 1992, just like all the other rural stations in this area. It was once classified as rural.
What would be the reason for this adjustment? Who knows, but the effects are obvious:
» Early warmer temperatures are artificially cooled.
» These two stations now have an extra warming trend and now do their bit to support the warming trend at the other 2,300 stations worldwide.
And it’s happening in my own backyard! I’m furious!
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/

“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment…”
Would that that were the case. If there weren’t so many recent incidents showing that they know how to play the funding system as “independent” groups then there wouldn’t have been much of a case for their combination. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Keep guarding us M&M&W (had to add the Watts on the end, of course).

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Come on guys, stop being so bashful. You’re infallible, why pretend otherwise? You’ve settled the Science. Job done. No further studies required.
Any concrete plans for your second careers yet?

More like climate disservices.

If I hadn’t changed my political party registration before now, this announcement would have surely sent me over the edge. If they are getting requests up the yingyang for information on climate change, send a FOI their way and ask for those requests. I wanna see ’em.
In the mean time, I can only hope that the impending Democratic Party doom of midterm elections will keep our legislatures out of our pockets!

Our nation is running trillion dollar deficits – we simply can not afford this massive boondoggle! .
What is it about the words “STOP SPENDING” that our government doesn’t understand!!

“And for the inauguration of this new Agency, which will go a long way toward helping us to Protect our Climate – please welcome – former Vice President Al Gore!”

re: short term cooling on a warming planet.
Good gawd. Climate scientists should be required to earn their meteorology degree (MA, not BS) before earning anything related to climate credentials. The stuff they attribute to climate and not rightly to natural short and long term weather pattern variation leaves me dumbstruck.

I’m sure Lisa Jackson over at EPA is just tickled pink over this. She will be able to point to NOAA for justification of more taxes and regulations instead of that nasty old guy Pachauri. They are on the same team right? NOAA, EPA, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Sierra Club, GreenPeace. A real dream team. Yessir, those pia skeptics are toast, alrighty.

I really think NOAA did this to give Sue Solomon her own agency to head up

And to replace the “The New Colossus” plaque at the Statue of Liberty, a short snippet from an earlier work:
“Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here”

“The interviewer Andrew Neil” did very well…and we need t o see much much more of the same.

I guess the NOAA didn’t see this email:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1120593115.txt
John Christy,
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
– Phil Jones

_Jim (19:19:40) :
Richard Holle (16:16:50) :
Looked at it earlier, why does the (incoming sunlight) solar output data stop in 2000?
Using patterns in The Natural variability of the weather, caused by Lunar Designational Tides,
Hmmm … “Lunar Designational Tides” not exactly terminology in common use; I came up with EXACTLY one (1) hit using Google – care to guess where that was?
.
.Sorry; no preview option
Darn spell check; was to be “Lunar Declinational Tides,” in the oceans they are almost nonexistent, due to the high density of water, and being bounded by land. In the atmosphere, however they are unbounded, and there for produce the turbulent flow expected in an unbounded “ocean ” of air, as well as the really weak height anomaly shifts, seen around the higher mountain chains.
Main stream Meteorologists found no declinational tidal effects, in the oceans and ASSUMED, that there would be even less chance of finding them in the Atmosphere, so they did not look.
The atmospheric tides, driven by the Lunar Declinational movements of the North/South movement of the Moon, are the main drivers of the medial flows surges in the atmosphere. These pulses of equatorial air move off the ITZ following the Moon’s movement, maintain the patterns in the Rossby waves, and resultant patterns in the Jet streams.
I have found a repeating pattern in the global atmospheric circulation that repeats naturally, with an approximately 87% correlation, well enough that three cycles of it added together result in the forecast you can see on the web site mentioned (click my name).
The individual daily weather data from 6,992 days ago, 13,550 days ago and 20,108 days ago when averaged together, produce the forecast maps presented for the next 4 years. The data was tabulated, in August of 2007 and generated into the maps September – December 2007, that have been posted unchanged since onto the site .
Just trying new options, as models don’t work farther than 10 to 15 days out, and farmers and others, need better long lead forecasting than that.

There’s a “Tell Us What You Think” button at the bottom of the new Climate Service web page. Here’s what I wrote … I encourage everyone to tell them exactly what you think about this nonsense …
w.

I understand that Tom Karl is going to head up this new service. Here’s Tom, from the CRU emails:
From: “Thomas.R.Karl”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang
Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations
showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers
to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press
in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in
the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested
JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization
at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil
So Tom Karl’s brilliant response to someone showing that you guys have done a very poor job of overseeing the ground stations is not a plan to fix what you’ve done wrong, not an admission of your faulty oversight, not a statement about the poor siting of many of the stations, but a “Press Release”??? A press release, get real.
And Tom went right along with Phil Jone’s illegal and immoral plan to turn down all Freedom of Interest requests from anyone associated with Climate Audit without a comment??? Funny, I don’t recall seeing “Associated with ClimateAudit” in the list of reasons for ignoring FOI requests … hell of an ethical scientist, that Tom.
I made the first FOIA request to CRU, a simple request for the data and station list. It was turned down with a succession of bogus excuses. Now we find out that Tom Karl and Phil Jones and others were in collusion to deny legal requests for standard scientific data, data that we should never have even had to request … thanks, Tom, you’re a real prince. We can see how much you respect the scientific method. See my post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
for an overview of the scientific malfeasance that Tom Karl signed off on.
Look, you guys can name anyone you want to run this circus. But when you put someone up there who winks at illegal actions and thinks that a proper response to shoddy, shabby work is a press release, don’t be surprised when people laugh and point. Because I assure you, that is what is happening right now, this moment, all over the planet. You want respect? Put someone honest in charge, someone who doesn’t go along with illegal actions, someone who actually cares about the quality of the data you are gathering.
Because putting the fox in charge of the henhouse no longer works in 2010, everything is now available for public inspection. You know, it seems like you folks just don’t get this new “Internet” thing. Your warts are all visible, your sins of omission and commission are well documented, your boss Tom Karl has been caught with his pants down, and you think putting up some glossy web site with him in charge is the right answer?
Like I said, people are laughing and pointing … you sure that’s what you want? NOAA used to be worthy of respect, and it could be again … but the respect has to be earned. Naming Tom Karl as the head of this farrago merely ensures that you will get no respect at all.
Sincerely,
Willis Eschenbach

Richard Holle, but you have the patterns over SE Minnesota wrong, and have forecast between two and four times as much snow as we are getting.
Once you create a federal department, it is very hard to get rid of it. That it parallels existing departments doesn’t seem to matter.

That I have found a natural analog that shows ANY promise at all was unexpected when I started looking.
That it can predict the timing of the outbreaks in severe weather, months and years in advance, with any recognizable patterns, gives me reason to further explore the interactions causing, this preliminary study to do better than the models perform out past 10-15 days.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/images/dramatic-decline-in-lake-powell-water-levels
Dave N (17:30:47) : Thanks.
The comments come from 1997, The picture of record low levels is 2003
The article with picture was posted Feb 8 (yesterday)

Is it true that this new NOAA will operate in six or seven new territorial regions instead of the known states. Is somebody thinking to change your political structure?

This just in from that AGW fighter Senator Inhofe’s EPW Minority Blog (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs):
EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER
February 9, 2010
Posted Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov
UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week:
– The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, will hold a hearing entitled, “Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management.”
– The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, “Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States.”
Once the hearings are rescheduled, information will be posted at http://www.epw.senate.gov