From Penn State:
Environment Canada cuts threaten science, international agreements
Recent cuts to the scientific workforce of Environment Canada, a government agency responsible for meteorological services and environmental research, threaten scientific research related to the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere and pollution in the lower atmosphere, according to environmental scientists in the U.S. These reductions in personnel and projected budget cuts also threaten existing international agreements.
“Canada is a bellwether for environmental change, not only for Arctic ozone depletion but for pollutants that stream to North America from other continents, ” said Anne Thompson, professor of meteorology, Penn State. “It is unthinkable that data collection is beginning to shut down in this vast country, in some cases at stations that started decades ago.”
The researchers, commenting in the current (Feb. 14) issue of the American Geophysical Unions Eos newspaper, state that since August when the cuts went into effect, ozone soundings have ceased at several Canadian stations. Lidar network measurements of particle pollution layers from five Canadian stations no longer occur, and the website that was distributing this data has disappeared.
Environment Canada conducts many programs in support of international agreements including the UN framework for Climate Change Convention, the Montreal Protocol and U.S. bilateral agreements. The Canadian government signed all these agreements, but their ability to fulfil their obligations is now in question.
“Research conducted by scientists in Canada has been instrumental for the success of the Montreal Protocol, the international legislation that has successfully reduced atmospheric levels of ozone depleting substances,” said Ross Salawitch, professor in the atmospheric and oceanic science department, University of Maryland, College Park. “The ozone layer, particularly in the Arctic, is still sensitive because of the long atmospheric lifetime of pollutants that cause ozone depletion.”
Binational agreements between Canada and the U.S. are also of concern to scientists and policy makers.
“A number of research areas in which Canada has shown past leadership now face a questionable future,” said Ray Hoff, professor of physics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “These include deposition of toxic organic chemicals from the air onto the Great Lakes and vertical profiling of aerosols using laser radar.”
Franco Einaudi, retired, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, adds, “Recent comments by Canada at the Durban Climate Change Summit have added to the concern that Canada’s environmental commitment may be changing.”
With Canada’s vast Northern Territory, tracking climatic sensitivities as well as ozone depletion and arctic pollution are concerns of scientists and policymakers alike. Environment Canada’s programs have long been a gold standard. With personnel losses and further decisions on reductions in force or re-assignment of personnel pending, the researchers are concerned that they and the international community can no longer rely on the exceptional efforts and past leadership that Canada exhibited.
“Canada stands to lose an entire community of highly respected scientists who are experts on ozone and climate if further proposed budget cuts go through,” said Jennifer Logan, senior research fellow in atmospheric chemistry, Harvard University.
Future budget cuts at Environment Canada appear certain. Until the community is given specifics about the long-term environmental program, the ability for Canada to maintain its key role in support of science and the international agreements like the Montreal Protocol is compromised. The world stands to lose an enormous amount of data necessary for our understanding of the environment in these cold reaches and around the globe if these programs end.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Boo Hoo
Well, it can’t all be bad then, if the Montreal Protocol gets the big swirly down the dirt chute. Wonder if China still supports it. Lizzie?
More, faster, cut the deficit by cutting useless programs.
Good move Steve
If Canadian measurements are so important why has NASA Giss avoided using them in its temperature assessments. It wouldn’t be because they might co tribute to a cooling picture.
So here’s the main point of this article (I knew they’d eventually get to it)…
“Canada stands to lose an entire community of highly
paidrespected scientists who are experts on ozone and climate if further proposed budget cuts go through,” said Jennifer Logan, senior research fellow in atmospheric chemistry, Harvard University.So I suppose these “experts” don’t have enough “skills” to make it in the private sector, like the rest of working stiffs? Hmmm…
And wait until the U.S. follows suit in 2013…November is only 9 months away…
Or maybe we Canuckleheads may have woken up to the fact that ozone depletion is no more caused by CFC’s then acne is caused by chocolate.
We were just told, in no uncertain terms, that less stations and measurements…….gave better results…..
…deal with it
“Environment Canada cuts threaten science…”
Women, children, and climate scientists hardest hit!!!
“threaten… international agreements”
oops! that whole idea that “international agreements” are forever is going down the tubes! Well, there goes the strategy of enshrining “global warming” into the law and thinking you’re done. Easy come, easy go.
“Canada stands to lose an entire community of highly respected scientists who are experts on ozone and climate if further proposed budget cuts go through,”
As Hamlet said, sounds like a consummation devoutly to be wished. kind of like when a patient finally realizes that his best hope of recovery will be to scrape off all the leeches his most eminent “doctors” have saddled him with.
Looks like the gravy train is slowly grinding to a halt.
“Canada is a bellwether for environmental change, not only for Arctic ozone depletion but for pollutants that stream to North America from other continents, ” said Anne Thompson, professor of meteorology, Penn State. “It is unthinkable that data collection is beginning to shut down in this vast country, in some cases at stations that started decades ago.”
So how do they explain the loss of some US temperature reporting stations, some of which had been operating for decades?
The second thing I noticed was the list of colleges that seem to be complaining – Penn State. University of Maryland, College Park. University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Harvard University.
Maybe it was just the location of the reporters, but it seems that if Canada was suffering the loss of data, why aren’t we hearing Canadian universities speaking up?
When the “Science” of the Climatologist meets the “Science” of the Economists and the Politicians.
The ‘Hard’ science guys have paid with their heads in the past, particularly when the Pope ruled the world. The science guys were factually correct, at times, and still feared public opinion.
Today, the ‘Hard’ science guys tried to play both sides. It worked great ‘cept they forgot…
“We the People”…or something like that…I think
Rent seekers lose rent.
Like the Catholics who don’t like President Obama’s HHS decree, the environmentalists are going to have to lie in the bed that they made for themselves.
Whether you are a proponent of AGW or more sceptical the last paragraph sums up the reality that losing an important source of carefully collected data assists no one. Hopefully the government will not terminate the programs
CFCs do not deplect ozone.
Ozone is a very unstable molecule, It does not need the help of any radicals to decompose, it does it by itself. The ozone depleted by CFCs theory is not compatible with the empirical data. If it were, the holes should not appear over the poles, but over the equator, where there is higher temperature and higher levels of radical forming radiation. And definetively not during the artic winter, when there is no solar radiation to break CFCs into radicals.
I was assured, a year ago, that Environment Canada spent not one cent on “Global Warming” studies etc. Civil servants mistaken? So the non-existent climate scientists have nothing to worry about….
Go Canada Go.
Lets hope that other countries will quickly follow.
“A number of research areas in which Canada has shown past leadership now face a questionable future,”
What is “shown past leadership”?
Endless data collection that cannot be shown to have contributed to anything useful?
Claiming it contributed to some legislation or program which may have led to some benefit is simply way too easy report.
Every ludicrous academic adventure makes that claim.
In this era of climate science pandemonium everybody and their mother wants a piece of the action for their “vital” work in measuring dirt, watching water and profiling precipitation.
I suspect that after many decades of sea ice measurement there will never be any demonstrated benefit it form doing so. Instead it will just be presumed to have been worthwhile. Really?
hmmm…
from: http://www.canada.com/Feds+upgrade+weather+monitoring+warning+systems/6027208/story.html
Feds to upgrade weather monitoring and warning systems
By Linda Nguyen, Postmedia News January 20, 2012
TORONTO – The federal government announced Friday it will spend $78.7 million over the next five years to improve Canada’s weather monitoring and warning systems.
The majority of the funding ($45.2 million) will go towards maintaining and upgrading 31 radar sites across the country, which detect weather patterns from tornadoes to heavy snow squalls. Some of the radars are up to 40 years old.
from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=592AB94B-1&news=06F87D0A-4EC0-41F2-99EE-729855FCEA65
The Government of Canada is investing $78.7 million over five years to strengthen weather and warning services for Canadians. This investment will upgrade four key areas of Environment Canada’s weather and climate monitoring infrastructure.
more…
You don’t need Canadian data. Your climate scientists ( hard to use the words climate and scientist together without smirking) can take measurements anywhere else in the world and interpolate the ozone levels over Canada from those measurements. Much like they do for their other data. They are also able to change the historical measurements to get the desired results.
Do we really need all these pesky measurement things when we have so many great models. The data will only get lost anyway. /sarc
Anne, if it is so very important, then you pay for it, or, pay for the information collected. If I want information regarding many subjects, I have to pay the holder of that information a handsome sum to get it. So far we have been giving it away. Most of the recipients seem to have been massaging the data until the results meet what they feel is the correct summation. As far as I am concerned, they can do it the “old fashioned way”, The way they did it in the nineteen nineties. They can invent it.
First, anything relating to climate and the environment coming from Penn State has no credibility as far as I’m concerned as long as Michael Mann is on the faculty. Second, although I think atmospheric and environmental research is important, the current crop of so-called environmental and climate scientists have demonstrated that they should all have their funding cut. They have practiced too much pseudoscience and become way to political to have the taxpayers continue to finance their garbage research. If people think I’m painting with too broad a brush, too bad. It’s way past the time for cleaning house.
And while we’re at it up here maybe the US of A can take away the tax exempt status of Media Matters.
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/climate_change
http://in.news.yahoo.com/video/opinion-15749653/is-the-white-house-coordinating-with-media-matters-28282054.html
UVic in Victoria BC has this group called the Pacific Climate Impact Consortium.
Recently they published this claim:
“Based on a preliminary analysis at PCIC of the 62 years of temperature data collected by Environment Canada since 1950, last year was about average. Nevertheless, the background tendency towards warmer temperatures is clear in these observations.
The 62-year trend shows an overall warming of about 0.25°C per decade, which is substantially greater than the global trend of 0.13°C per decade reported by the IPCC for the period 1956-
2005.”
Hmmm. 62 years. Why would they pick 1950 as the baseline?
http://pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/PCIC.Update.Winter2012.pdf
Oh right. Of the 3 GISS BC stations I could find with 2011 and pre-1950 data I noticed that 1950 was pretty much the coldest year ever.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403711090000&data_set=13&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403718940000&data_set=13&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425004514840&data_set=13&num_neighbors=1
The claim about excess warming from 1950 is quite bogus and shames Canada and UVic in particular.
Yeah, well the recent data hasn’t really been helping the Team. So I guess they’re better off without it.
Oh well, back to the models, the tree rings and other proxies it is then. Much easier to manage anyway.