WUWT Poll: Do we need a "National Climate Service"?

We already have NCDC in Asheville, plus several regional climate centers

We already have NCDC in Asheville, plus several regional climate centers

From Slashdot and Networkworld

I suppose it’s natural for Washington to try and wrap issues up in a tidy legislative package for bureaucratic purposes (or perhaps other things more nefarious). But one has to wonder if we really need another government-led group, especially when it comes to the climate and all the sometimes controversial information that entails. But that’s what is under way.

Today the House Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on the need for a National Climate Service that could meet the increased demand for climate information, the committee said.

The NCS would provide a single point of contact of information climate forecasts and support for planning and management decisions by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector.

“Climate affects all of us everyday in communities across the country.  As our ability to understand and recognize climate cycles and patterns has grown, so has the demand for more information,” said Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA) in a statement.  “It is in our best interest to structure a service that will utilize our expertise to deliver information that will not only support us nationally, but at the regional and local scale where adaptation and response plans can best be implemented.”

According a release from the committee, the hearing included witnesses from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Agriculture, and other organizations that deliver climate services as well as witnesses who utilize climate information that is currently available.

NOAA describes the NCS as being the nation’s identified, accessible, official source of authoritative, regular, and timely climate information.  That includes historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision support tools and early warning systems, and the development and delivery of valued climate services.

One has to wonder though are climate issues, which can require nimble action in some cases really be served by what would likely end up being a huge governmental entity.

The ClimateScienceWatch.org site put the challenges this way:

The need to be able to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change], the US Climate Change Science Program, and other ongoing scientific climate-related research and observations into information that is usable, useful, timely and relevant to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on present and future climate conditions is what the drive to create US National Climate Service is all about.  In collaboration with officials from other agencies and research institutions, NOAA has been engaged in a deliberative planning process for establishing an overall framework within the federal government that would spell out the respective roles and responsibilities of NOAA and other federal and non-federal entities, and provide a prescription for managing and operating a NCS.

Though the idea has been kicked around for years-for example, the National Research Council has issued two reports of relevance:  A Climate Services Vision:  First Steps Toward the Future (2001) and Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services (2003)-a consensus has still not been achieved on how best to design, operate, and fund such an entity, or even whether a National Climate Service as it is being currently framed is the right vehicle for meeting today’s needs.

So what do you think?

Advertisements

99 thoughts on “WUWT Poll: Do we need a "National Climate Service"?

  1. Like we really need even MORE agencies falsifying data. We can barely keep up now.
    Mike

  2. Or do we need an “International Climate Service”? where ordinary folk in the muzzled regimes of Obama and Rudd and Brown can learn about the Czech or Polish – or – who next? Japanese? Russian? – views of AGW.

  3. Wonderful idea but to give it credibility it should be contracted out to an independent body seperate from government; such as WUWT.
    Anthony, why don’t you offer to provide the service at an appropriate fee, then no more need for Google trash ads? Oh well we can always dream.

  4. This just introduces an extra layer between the raw data and the politically adjusted AGW-conforming data. Its simply adding to the complexity of the climate data supply chain to make it even more difficult for the average person on the street to tell what is real from what is manufactured. Meanwhile, our taxes will be used to add this additional barrier to the truth. Thanks.
    The climate centers on the above map should be perfectly adequate in serving the claimed purpose.

  5. This would be the best way to gather, filter and fabricate the data that would support their Climate Change Policies. They would be able to keep a lid on their researchers since the government would be the official spokeperson. Also, this would be so big that they would claim to know-it-all and anyone else are wrong.
    Independant research is the only research that is truely scientific.

  6. Keep in mind that the climate service becomes unnecessary if AGW isn’t a problem, difficult to impossible to fix and dangerous. Any of those go away and we don’t need to fund it— so they wont.

  7. I’m still amazed that the (other) CDC couldn’t delegate any responsibility for determining flu strains. All the samples headed for Georgia. Transit times + massive backlogs. Etc.

  8. Definitely not. Almost all of the problems with AGW are the result of limited sources of funding, limited access to study publishing, limited access to mainstream media, and centralized bureaucracies that decide for the entire U.S.
    A national climate service would simply be another choke point to repress data and ideas that were out of favor with whoever gained control of the service.
    We need to emulate the founding fathers and push all government services down to the lowest practical level of government.

  9. What is the need? If we can’t get it right with the agencies we have, what good will one more government service do us?
    Ans. No need, no good.

  10. I don’t really know what it would do or who it would help or if it would save money or cost money versus the status-quo.
    So, I didn’t vote.
    Still, I am skeptical that the NCS would not be independent and objective. I am skeptical that by putting all the eggs in one basket, the “truth” (whatever i may be) could be squelched.

  11. Just as Rep Bachman put in a provison in one of the spending bills that said that groups under indictment couldn’t get govt funding from that bill (nailing Acorn until Barney Frank realized he’d screwed up), I have no problem with a national climate service provided that the bill requires all employees and grant recipients to employ the scientific method and sign an honesty pledge.
    Imagine how much different the current debate would be if we simply required honesty and the scientific method from govt scientists!

  12. More single line, fascistic groupthink, more data massaging; more ways to control the thoughts of the citizens; more deception; more bs. It’s perfect for the present government!

  13. Makes me realise how lucky we are in the UK where we don’t have a climate, only weather, though it’s interesting to see that I’ve been invited in one of the ads to “help” the climate. Where do I start?

  14. No.
    We could with a Climate Adaptation Service to help with how best to adapt to climate changes!
    More important would be to have a
    Transportation Transition Service
    to help with the looming critical issue of declining light oil and the need to transition transportation to other sources of fuel or energy.

  15. realitycheck (16:29:24)
    ” Meanwhile, our taxes will be used to add this additional barrier to the truth”
    I found it kind of comforting, however, that Anthony just got something out of the UK taxpayer when I clicked an advert on his site just moments ago.
    i.e.
    Climate Change Centre
    One-stop centre for climate science Explore world-leading science
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
    I wonder just how much the UK government pays annually in click-through fees and why it thinks it needs to spend taxpayers money in such a way!
    Graundian Moonbat will be in danger of succumbing to an apoplexy when he finds out that Neue Labour is bankrolling WUWT!
    Maybe, someone should be asking questions in the Houses of Parliament.
    Plea to WUWT readers – please feel free to visit the met office as often as you can. It’s a jolly good site and has lots of useful information!!

  16. PS – Please don’t use the link I provided. Do it from the top of the page, if and when it’s available. Happy clicka-ching.

  17. Sorry Way OT but check out new snow depth on our local ski field snow graph. Its the green line way over to the left shooting up like a space shuttle on take-off. Our Met service (historically quite accurate if a little conservative) are predicting another meter of snow during the next 7 days – unprecedented in my lifetime! Strange thing is we can’t blame the Gore Effect as its unlikely he even knows where we are. 🙂
    http://www.nzski.com/report.jsp?site=mthutt

  18. What do Montana and Hawaii have in common? Maine and West Virginia? Tennessee and Texas? Politics trumps science. There is no geographic or scientific justification for this scheme.

  19. Who needs another organization promoting the IPCC BS.
    Climate can’t be controlled by man and any one stating it can be controlled needs to be locked up in a mental institution.
    The same goes for all those nerds that take such a tremendous effort to create a Global Government and the population control freaks.
    They all belong behind the thick steel walls of a closed institution.
    It’s a matter of them or us.
    Wattsupwiththat?

  20. Gee, as I am thinking about it the agricultural cooperative extension service probably has a keener sense of the conditions of the local climate than do any of the regional climate centers and they actually provide additional services as identifying insects, weeds, plant diseases and soil testing. They actually do something helpful for the citizens. I am not sure I can say the same for the NCDC.
    Besides the first words out of their mouths is NOT “it’s because of global warming”.

  21. “The need to be able to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change…”
    Ho, ho, ho, they have to be kidding! This is all we need, an international political body influencing the climate information that Americans receive (and recommending how we are supposed to respond to it). This must be the product of a collective insanity. No thank you. The climate centers we already have are just fine.

  22. Frank K. (16:39:40) :
    Just what we need during these tough economic times…more spending on “climate services”!! Really? What the heck is NOAA doing, anyway? Isn’t this the NCDC’s job?
    BTW…from the NOAA document
    http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2008/NOAA_SAB_CWG_NCS_Review_Sep08_FINALtoNOAA.pdf
    Guess who’s on the review team??
    REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS
    .
    .
    Heidi Cullen
    The Weather Channel
    Frank, here we have it.
    I adjust my prior advice.
    We need to lock them up in straitjackets behind the thick steel walls of a mental institution.

  23. The best way to combat government propaganda in science is the ability to disseminte data and ideas from an independent source. We do not need another political government agency using a political concensus to ram pseudo-science down our throats in order to spend tax dollars. As long as there are those who believe in and support a free press, we are all a lot safer from control by less than honorable rulers.

  24. NO! It would become even more powerful than the EPA and be stacked with typical
    bureaucratic oafs that toe a line of insanity!

  25. talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars!!!..the only new bureacracy we need is a “National Center for the Elimination of the other Bureaucracies”

  26. Yes, I agree entirely with the statement:
    “Climate affects all of us everyday in communities across the country. As our ability to understand and recognize climate cycles and patterns has grown, so has the demand for more information,” especially the part about climate cycles and patterns.
    As population density increases and resources become scarcer we will need a better understanding of climate variations to assist planning and avoid disaster.
    Unfortunately any body ‘translating the good works of the IPPC’ is likely to have the opposite effect. Debate will be stifled and all “patterns” will be equated to AGW, that is unless they can translate the good works of the IPCC into science.
    Now there’s a challenge!

  27. So now the guvmint want something in line with the BOM and Met office – guvmint run climate scare offices! This new administration just wants to be in charge of everything, don’t they? As I read somewhere, Orwells’ 1984 was not intended to be an instruction manual. Maybe the guvmint should be reminded of that.

  28. Anyone know where one can get the US monthly temperature numbers? If the answer is No, then we need a new agency.
    The NOAA publishes a monthly new release that says “In March, 2009, US temperatures were the 13th warmest in the last 42 years and the 9th warmest this century”. But that is all one gets beyond a few maps that are unusually uninformative.
    GISS gives us an annual temperature chart (that we know has been changed 4 or 5 times now).
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif
    But the NOAA does not give us a reliable metric that says it has been getting colder over the past 18 months. Did you know that US temperatures have fallen 1.5C in the last 3 years?
    So, I downloaded the monthly US temperature from here. (Thanks to the NOAA for not linking to this database anywhere – reminds me of the NSIDC).
    http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
    And produced these two charts of the 12 month moving average of US temperatures so there is better resolution of the trends but there is too much variability to use the normal “anomaly” method that we are used to seeing. (first one is in degrees F – second is degrees C)
    http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8913/ustempsf.png
    http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9651/ustempsc.png
    So, Yeah, we need a new agency that is not so stuck in their ways that Iowa corn belt weather matters more to them than anything else.

  29. Mike Bryant @16:16:28
    Like we really need even MORE agencies falsifying data.
    Mike, it’s exactly the opposite reason that inspires this Agency.
    With just one agency publishing and twisting statistics, it is much easier to control the output, with no unfortunate leakage of different adjustments from other sources spoling the party line. This is The One Source That Will Bind Them All.

  30. “The need to be able to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change], the US Climate Change Science Program, and other ongoing scientific climate-related research and observations into information that is usable, useful, timely and relevant to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on present and future climate conditions is what the drive to create US National Climate Service is all about.”
    Usable!? Useful!? Timely!? TIMELY!!??!!??
    From the gum’mint no less!?!?!!!
    Bah! Humbug! We’ve already paid for climate data and we’ve been ripped off. No sense throwing good money after bad.

  31. Ed MacAulay (16:17:48) :
    ‘then no more need for Google trash ads? Oh well we can always dream.’
    Ed, I’m having fun making Gore pay for WUWT

  32. I would have deferred to the opinions of our host and others here, who are experts in weather—I mean ‘climate’—matters, until I read this:

    “The need to be able to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change], the US Climate Change Science Program, and other ongoing scientific climate-related research and observations into information that is usable, useful, timely and relevant to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on present and future climate conditions is what the drive to create US National Climate Service is all about. . . “

    Imagine: the charter of this new government agency is “to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC!” Do you suppose they will engrave the quote that (to paraphrase) “Global warming is almost certainly the result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels” on marble in the rotunda of the Algore Climate Temple—er, building?
    I vote no.
    /Mr Lynn

  33. I can see it now:
    One of the first acts of the new agency will be to issue “carbon” ration cards to every citizen. We’ll be entitled to exhale all the CO2 we are able, because the new government believes in freedom. And we will be permitted to heat our homes to 68° F. And Big Brother the Agency will allow us to emit exhaust from our scooters when we’re allowed to ride them on even or odd days. And barbecue twice each summer.
    Beyond that, we will have to pay an extra carbon tax for the right to emit additional CO2. How else is the government going to protect the climate from “carbon”?
    Seriously, if the gov’t wants to do something productive and honest, it can start by fixing the U.S. Surface Station network — where 69% of the stations read 2° or more high. That’s more of an error than all the claimed warming since 1880.

  34. The notion that the US Government can impact the climate of planet Earth through policy decisions is just plain idiotic. That is not a political statement, that is a statement of reality. Anyone who thinks a “United States Climate Service” would make an iota of difference is a complete idiot.
    I would at least have a pinch of respect if they just came out with the truth and said “We want to use fear of climate change, and people’s belief that we can control that change to create an agency that will allow us to manage people, business, and industry to a greater extent than we can today”.
    It is lunacy, it is dumb, it is fantasy, and it is moronic. Not to even mention the arrogant narcissism that goes into thinking that the US alone can control the climate of the planet. What a load of nonsense!

  35. Smokey-
    I guess your ration card will be entitled, “Smoke on the water, fire in the sky.” The background will be Deep Purple.

  36. Non voting, non American viewpoint.
    No doubt a National Climate Service structure and operations would be based on and similar to the usual National Weather Service organisations of most countries.
    That implies that not only will it be a source of a very wide range of climate information and data but will also be making climate forecasts for the short and long term future.
    When the weather forecasting organisations get it wrong just a few days out, any decisions and very short term policies can be quickly adjusted and catered for albeit usually at some short term inconvenience but with little in the way of substantial long term damage or financial cost.
    With a National Climate Service climate forecasting requirement, the consequences of a projected seasonal or decade long climate forecast being incorrect is almost a guaranteed given.
    There will be immense pressure on government policy making bodies and large business organisations to base their long term outlooks on the prognostications of any such Climate Service.
    Not to do so would leave many large shareholder owned corporations open to legal action.
    Government departments in particular will be required to take the Climate Service forecasts into account when formulating policy.
    As these policies are long term as in years and possibly decades, they will influence fundamental decisions which once made will take years to re-orientate and redress if and when the subsequent climate scene does not match the forecasts.
    Farmers as an example, constantly watch the seasonal forecasts but are experienced enough and have been badly burnt often enough not to place any trust in the seasonal forecasts as issued by all the world’s various national weather and seasonal forecasting organisations.
    The seasonal forecasts are only used by them as a guide at best to plan their season.
    Power system planning, stock trading, agricultural, horticultural and live stock supplies, transport system planning and potential emergency planning plus many other long term based industries could all be very badly affected by just one wrong seasonal forecast.
    The ability to change course in industries that have very long planning and cycle times is very limited and they often have to live with any bad decisions that have been made until the completion of that cycle.
    Just as a possible example; In the power generation industry, a decision to say build or not build a billion dollar power station based on a long term climate forecast could take decades to resolve and at an enormous cost if that climate forecast turns out to be wrong.
    And government policy based on the Climate Service forecasts may well force the power company to follow a course that it may not have chosen if left to decide purely on economic grounds as at present with some very serious economic consequences for both the customers and the investors in that power company.
    Guaranteeing the impartiality of all data under the present climate dissension would be almost impossible to achieve but with the right legislation and personnel in control it may just be possible.
    A central Climate Data organisation maybe!
    A Climate Forecasting Service, No!

  37. “The need to be able to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change], the US Climate Change Science Program, and other ongoing scientific climate-related research and observations into information that is usable, useful, timely and relevant to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on present and future climate conditions”
    It says it all: what good work of the IPCC??? This is another attempt to create an extra bureaucracy and reward all AGWists with taxpayers money and pensions. So should Nature continue to be firmly in the realist camps, the trolls won’t have lost it all. At worst, this can become a thought minister that will harass climate realists and distort measurements that do not fit the agenda. Already, given the number of suspect publications coming out of so called peer-reviewed journals and the exploitation the media makes of them -the Steig et al. 2009 Nature cover and its spurious trends comes to mind- one wonders if science is becoming scientism and structures are now created to support this shift.

  38. Snow Rollers on the Camas Prairie
    March 31 2009
    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/otx/photo_gallery/snow_rollers.php
    On the evening of March 31st, 2009, Tim Tevebaugh was driving home from work east of Craigmont in the southern Idaho Panhandle (see map below). Across the rolling hay fields, Tim saw a very unusual phenomenon. The snow rollers that he took pictures of are extremely rare because of the unique combination of snow, wind, temperature and moisture needed to create them. They form with light but sticky snow and strong (but not too strong) winds. Some snow rollers are formed by gravity (i.e. rolling down a hill), but in this case, the snow rollers were generated by the wind. These snow rollers formed during the day as they weren’t present in the morning on Tim’s drive to work.
    Based on estimations from Tim as well as the blades of grass in the picture, most of the snow rollers were about 18″ in height, while the largest rollers were about 2 feet tall.

  39. Smokey (18:11:00) :
    I can see it now:
    One of the first acts of the new agency will be to issue “carbon” ration cards to every citizen. We’ll be entitled to exhale all the CO2 we are able, because the new government believes in freedom. And we will be permitted to heat our homes to 68° F. And Big Brother the Agency will allow us to emit exhaust from our scooters when we’re allowed to ride them on even or odd days. And barbecue twice each summer.
    Beyond that, we will have to pay an extra carbon tax for the right to emit additional CO2. How else is the government going to protect the climate from “carbon”?
    Seriously, if the gov’t wants to do something productive and honest, it can start by fixing the U.S. Surface Station network — where 69% of the stations read 2° or more high. That’s more of an error than all the claimed warming since 1880″.
    Smokey,
    You have entirely missed the the essence of the plan.
    We have the UN IPCC telling the regional Climate Bureaus what to tell the Government about their predictions.
    Than we have EPA taking care of the rules and the regulations.
    For the execution of the rules we have ACORN who will send their buffoons from door to door checking on emissions, dealing dope, do a bit of loan sharking, selling you second hand cars, grab your vote for the next election and offer other services that could make you end up with a gun in your nose.
    And if the ACORN officials get cornered by the angry public, they send in the Civil Army.
    Anyhow, one false move and you get screwed by at least four independent Government Agencies and all the former thugs and free loaders from the neighborhood.
    How else do you think Obama is going to create all those “Green Jobs” he promised?

  40. I had to read the article 3 times before it dawned on me “NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE” What the h*** heck do we need with a national climate service, the national weather guessers can’t get 30 days right let alone changes over years.
    If they have to spend money on something lets spend it on better weather stations and data collection, something that Anthony has been railing about over the last 30 or so years, and then maybe we can get a real picture of the local changes in weather and regional climate.
    What is a service on climate? Do they provide climate to order? I vote NO!

  41. OT
    Not Found: ICECAP.US, crashed, hacked or shut down for site-maintenance?
    The requested URL /index.php was not found on this server.
    Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
    Apache/2.2.11 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.11 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at http://www.icecap.us Port 80

  42. I’d prefer to see an agency that would require full disclosure on scientific papers used as the basis for forming policy. Which means, the agency would have to be provided with all data and methods used to reach the conclusion of the paper, so the results can be replicated (or an attempt at replication can be made). And the disclosure is to the public not just the peer-review old boy’s club.
    Thus, people like Mann, Briffa, Jones, Santer, et al can’t hide behind any fanciful walls if they expect to be taken seriously. If that’s the goal of the agency, I’m all for it.

  43. James McFatridge (16:42:41) :
    “Definitely not. Almost all of the problems with AGW are the result of limited sources of funding, limited access to study publishing, limited access to mainstream media, and centralized bureaucracies that decide for the entire U.S.
    A national climate service would simply be another choke point to repress data and ideas that were out of favor with whoever gained control of the service.
    We need to emulate the founding fathers and push all government services down to the lowest practical level of government”.
    James, I love this: another choke point to repress data
    Keep up the good work.

  44. Isn’t NOAA a country-wide body responsible for this?
    From their web site:
    Welcome to NOAA!
    NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. Our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work to keep citizens informed of the changing environment around them.
    From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.
    NOAA’s roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established. Since then, NOAA has evolved to meet the needs of a changing country. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has emerged as an international leader on scientific and environmental matters.
    NOAA’s mission touches the lives of every American and we are proud of our role in protecting life and property and conserving and protecting natural resources. I hope you will explore NOAA and how our products and services can enrich your own life.

  45. That looks like the kind of divisions that UNESCO would throw out at us to bring in the MAB project, I wish they had stayed gone like Reagan wanted.

  46. No. Make that he!! no.
    sammy k nailed it when he said: talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars!!!..the only new bureacracy we need is a “National Center for the Elimination of the other Bureaucracies”

  47. Bill Illis (17:39:22) : “The NOAA publishes a monthly new release that says “In March, 2009, US temperatures were [..] the 9th warmest this century
    2009. 9th-warmest?????
    Lucy Skywalker (16:19:07) : “Or perhaps Australia is starting to emancipate herself now, thanks to Plimer and JoNova and other authors there, getting the message out…
    New Zealand too – “Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming” by Ian Wishart has reportedly gone straight to #1 in NZ on its launch.

  48. Having just read the results of Anthony’s work on surface stations available from Heartland, I can’t imagine the need for yet another failed bureaucratic organization. They should first fix the NCDC and the USHCN.

  49. James Allison (17:01:05) : Our Met service (historically quite accurate if a little conservative) are predicting another meter of snow during the next 7 days – unprecedented in my lifetime!
    http://www.nzski.com/report.jsp?site=mthutt

    WOW! I think an article showcasing the developing winter in the S.H. might be rather interesting… The stuff in the link was rather, er, significant:

    Last Fall 40 cm, 04 May 2009
    Road Closed
    The road is CLOSED to all traffic due to avalanche dangers caused by recent snow falls.
    Snow Lower mountain snow depth: 70 cm
    Upper mountain snow depth: 80 cm
    Snow surface: Powder
    Mt Hutt is currently receiving heavy snowfalls and creating potential avalanche dangers. Please note that the acess road is closed to all traffic and will not be reopened until we have completed avalanche control work. We do not expect to open the road this weekend as we are expected more snow.
    Weather Snow, -3°C
    Still Snowing heavily.

    And you say they expect this to continue for a week?!
    Any more Global Warming like this and the Island will start to sink under the weight of the snow and glaciers…
    BTW, I’m finding the text ads not an issue, but it seems that if I come back to a thread it changes to top ads to a big high page weight graphical ad on the re-visit. That’s a bit annoying, especially when I’m on a low speed link.
    I have found it pleasant to ring the Gore et. al. register by selective clicking AND got a dose of “reality check” about what the loons are thinking from some of them… The http://www.cop15.dk ad in particular was good “intel” in that these folks were openly advertising their intent to bugger the world economy (and giving the name of the company they work for) in Copenhagen. We can only hope that Russia, Czech, etc. manage to put a spanner in the works…
    FWIW, the ads that pop up seem to be keyed to the article title key words. So, Anthony, I think we need an article titled “Halle Berry Hot Climate Images” about the way data are graphically presented in the climate debate with reds and oranges for cold, yeah, that’s it… Just as an experiment, of course!
    😉
    And, to stay a bit near topic, the last thing we need is a Climate Service (unless of course they will be able to move mountains, water deserts, change the national latitude, or move the ocean somewhere else…)

  50. We don’t need another federal bureaucracy filled with pseudo scientists.

  51. Global Climate Debate
    Voice your opinion before the UN Climate Change Conference 2009
    http://www.cop15.dk/blogs
    Select this link from the advertiser menu, tell them what you think about the BS they have published on their site and Anthony gets advertising fees from the UN!
    Let’s see if they are really in for a climate debate!
    I think they censure skeptic responses.

  52. The goal is clear and understandable, if you control the data then you control the whole debate, all data can then be gathered in to a central point, processed and ‘adjusted’ to fit a given narrative.
    All through history there are examples of those who wish to control the lives of others for whatever reason exhibiting the pathological need to dominate and control the flow of information.
    A single source for the gathering and disemination of of data is far easier to control and manipulate than multiple and independent sources, remember that he who controls the data controls the message.
    You can bet your bottom dollar that this new ‘pravda’ will be headed and staffed with politically reliable and on message people and the inner workings and practices will become very secret and insulated from independent audit and review, information will be gathered in and adjusted to suit the political agenda and narrative and then given out to a client media, what is it about socialists and their inbuilt desire to control everything?
    The upshot will be of course that once up and running with the doors locked and the blinds down the weather and climate will suddenly start to change and march in lockstep with the AGW/MMCC narrative, all of a sudden the outgoing data will depart from reality, you may see the rain clouds/snow/cool weather BUT you will be told a different story by the new weather/climate commissars, you may well complain to the monolith but by the time your complaint has beeen held up for months by a blind and confusing beaurocracy you will be handed a standard brush off letter if you are lucky and/or you will be marked as a trouble maker/anti social element.
    Its rather sad to see the USA of all places become infected with the cancer of socialist/marxist idealism in action.

  53. I vote No.
    NCDC was supposed to gather, archive and disseminate data. They were doing OK until they started tinkering with the data itself with stuff like UHI corrections and retroactive alteration of observed data to conform to their in-house developed ideas about climate change. Tom Karl oversaw this operation and he is where the buck should stop. For his efforts in creating an increasingly unreliable data base he has been give accolades culminating in his present moonlight job, President of the AMS. Talk about the Peter Principle.
    The incredibly rapid move to creat a socialist country where all the power is concetrated in a bureaurocracy which will become steadily further removed from the voting public is alarming to say the least. The NCS would be just one more concentration of power in a single Government agency.
    If nothing else, the last few years…the IPCC era if you will…has clearly demonstrated that politicians and bureaucrats have no business in managing science. One failed projection after another, whether it be Global temperatures of Solar activity, ought to convinvce people how much of a travesty this is. Although the public is not getting the message from “reliable” news sources, they are instead starting to figure it out for themselves.

  54. “National Climate Service”.
    I wonder whether the name of this putative entity is intended to echo the UK’s National Health Service. If so, prepare yourselves for an organisation with more layers of bureaucracy than there are stars in the sky and an abject failure to deliver a good quality service no matter how much money is pumped into it.
    To my, always flabby, mind there is a fundamental problem with a National Climate Service, namely that it cannot provide a new service.
    A National Weather Service is different. Such a service can collate such information as it trusts and say “We think the weather today, tomorrow and next Monday will be this … but it’s only an educated guess, so don’t hold us to it.” That is what weather forecasters do everywhere in the world, and it is quite right that they should do so because people who are not in a position to make an educated guess want a bit of help before they invite forty friends round for a naturist extravaganza, a cold snap could cause highly embarrassing shrinkage.
    What service can possibly be provided in relation to climate? “Service” is the key here. What service can it provide? In principle there is only one, the provision of information. That’s fair enough, a library containing every piece of research and every documented observation relevant to studies of matters climatic would be a jolly good thing. Somehow I doubt that they have such a thing in mind because there is easy access already to all relevant publications. Yet that is the only service that could be provided to the public.
    Perhaps it is more realistic to look at the idea as a service for those at the top of the pyramid rather than for us little people at the bottom. Indeed, that is all it could be unless it is just a massive library. In other words, it can be nothing other than a propaganda machine aimed at stifling debate. I wish there were another option but there isn’t. It can be either a factual repository or a means to argue a case, nothing else.

  55. Has anyone checked yet to see whether or not James Hansen could be persuaded to head the new agency?

  56. The NWS Employees Union has weighed in…
    http://nwseo.org/pdfs/NatlFwd0609.pdf
    They don’t want the National Climate Service to become another Line Office of NOAA. Instead, they want to go the cheap route by putting the charter of the NCS within the National Weather Service (Call it the National Weather and Climate Service?)
    The Climate Prediction Center and COOP program maintance is already under the NWS. Why not move NCDC and parts of OAR under NWS management too?
    Maybe it is because that the run-of-the-mill NWS employees are somewhat skeptical of AGW (much like the broadcast meteorologists) that the Obama adminstration thinks it is better to get their “message” out by creating a new line office?
    Something to think about

  57. Lets try this again with a proper HTML link closure…
    Wansbeck (17:38:09) : As population density increases and resources become scarcer we will need a better understanding of climate variations to assist planning and avoid disaster.
    And exactly what resources are going to become scarcer?
    Fresh water is unlimited, thanks to advances in desalinization.
    There is no shortage of rock, stone, clay for bricks, etc.
    There is more limestone for cement making that could ever be used, and more formed every day in the oceans.
    The banded iron formations of the planet are hugh and iron is an incredibly high proportion of the planet.
    Sand is functionally unlimited (see the Sahara).
    So there is no limit on glass, stone, masonry, steel & iron structures.
    Copper? It is present in manganese nodules on the ocean floor. We don’t harvest them because there is not enough demand for the stuff we can already harvest on land. There is about 500 BILLION tons and the harvest techniques are already developed (that’s about 100 TONS per person on the planet…) From:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule
    “The chemical composition of nodules varies according to the kind of manganese minerals and the size and characteristics of the core. Those of greatest economic interest contain manganese (27-30 %), nickel (1.25-1.5 %), copper (1-1.4 %) and cobalt (0.2-0.25 %). Other constituents include iron (6 %), silicon (5%) and aluminium (3%), with lesser amounts of calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, titanium and barium, along with hydrogen and oxygen.”
    So there is no shortage of METALS and there never will be.
    Plenty of ceramics, stone, sand, glass, metals – I’m running out of things to run out of…
    Even then, we can make rather nice homes out of trash. The Earthship is an existence proof of that. Made from old tires, dirt, empty bottles, … They collect their own rainwater (and work in 7 INCH per year rainfall zones just fine…) and process their own sewage and make their own electricity… and work well even in the rather scruffy semidesert of New Mexico so land is just not a problem for them…
    Maybe you’re thinking “Plastics, there’s a future in Plastics!”… well, we’re not going to run out of them, either. We can make them from plants (as several companies already do… I own stock in a couple of them BAK in Brazil for example). We can grow feed stock for bioPlastics at the rate of over 50 tons per acre …
    So no shortage of plastics, nor any other “petro” chemical either… Paper, wood, forest products: they are all farmed and renewable too…
    No, at the end of the day there is not much that leaves the planet so we never “run out” because it never goes away…
    But surely we’re running out of fossil fuels! Yes, in about 500 years, maybe, if we try really really hard to burn it all. But we never run out of usable energy, and that is what really matters:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
    And the simple fact is that as long as you have energy, you can get all the other resources you need or want at reasonable costs.
    Food? Greenhouses & high rise pig / chicken condos. Land? Think vertical. Everyone on the planet could live at the same density of London in roughly 6 patches about the size of the UK with the rest of the planet being completely empty of people. Last time I looked London was an OK lifestyle…
    Want an ocean view? Last time I did the calculation, everyone could have an ocean view condo with no structure higher than about 4 to 6 stories (though it’s a bit hard to figure out due to the coastline being fractal and of indeterminant length) using ONLY the North American continent and with no structure more than a hundred feet deep. (i.e. a single building facing the ocean with no buildings behind it…)
    The simple fact is that the “running out” thesis is broken. We aren’t. We can’t. We won’t. It comes from folks being scared by exponential functions (and The Club Of Rome promoting the scare stories) and it is just wrong.
    So no, we won’t run out, and no, we don’t need someone to make us more aware of climate variations. It doesn’t much vary. (At least not on anything less than 1000 year time scales). Weather changes, but unless you move an ocean, lower a mountain, or shift my latitude, my climate is going to be pretty much the same 1000 years from now as it is today (modulo Bond Events that are cyclical).
    Please, let go of the worry. Let go of the “avoid disaster needed” mindset.
    And especially let go of the notion that you need to give up some liberty so that the Powers That Be can help plan you out of the catastrophe that is just around the corner, because it isn’t there…
    All they will do is plan you out of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
    (The scare stories already dampen the happiness …)
    This life is not a dress rehearsal, take big bites, and do not ever let anyone tell you that there is not enough stuff for everyone on the planet to live a full, happy, and wealthy life. Just go make it happen.

  58. I just visited the UN Climate Change Conf. site and found two of these:
    “Deleted due to terms of use violation”
    I assume those here that tried to leave comments caused this. So I figure they will be extra careful now and I didn’t bother writing anything for them. I suppose one ought to read the terms of use and then try to slip something in that confuses them. I’m too tired tonight to try that but will keep it in mind.
    As for a new National Climate Service: NO!
    To paraphrase an old saying: When you find yourself screwing up, stop!
    [OT: I just read Anthony’s report on the surface stations at the Heartland Institute’s site. http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf
    Well done! Buy a few and send them to your local paper, politicians, and such. Or send a link to them if you are short of cash.]

  59. This is just what is needed as part of an economic stimulus package – jftb (jobs for the boys).

  60. In some countries it is illegal to report weather or climate news that contradicts the national report. You know this is all about controlling the news and information.

  61. Re: John F. Hultquist (22:48:39) :
    I just clicked into the conference site, picked a presentation at random to look at, and immediately noticed a deleted comment. I then clicked on their TOS link to see what they are specifying. There I found the following said several different ways:
    “if the content is characterized as harassment or is written in a demeaning or offensive tone, if the content is not in English or if it is impossible to understand”
    If any of that is deemed to be true about a post, they consider it counter to the terms of use, and are free to delete it and possibly ban the user. They’ve also reserved to themselves the right to make all decisions…
    I’m guessing that any comment that contradicts the premise of a post is an immediate candidate for “harassment” or “demeaning”, and as a last resort “impossible to understand”.
    The article I picked at random seemed at a quick skim to be claiming that a huge uptick in natural disaster was somehow related to the general topic of climate change. The only comment I could make would be demeaning and harassing, I’m afraid, so I didn’t bother.

  62. Climate is not national, why should climate offices be?
    The current zones are in relatively logical locations for their respective climates. Adding an extra over-seeing layer above is nothing more than a make-work project… perhaps one of these “green jobs” we keep hearing about? What good are millions of “green jobs” if the government pays for them?
    Across the border to the north is a similar zonal arrangement with West Coast, Prairies, Central Canada, and Maritimes. Each is a fairly similar area weather-wise, and each is completely different than the rest.

  63. NO, but not for the reason given in the poll. We just shouldn’t have it at THIS moment. Because with the current AGW hysteria, something like that would only serve to give some alarmist guy more absolute control to create more propaganda and silence more dissenting voices. We definitely don’t want that.

  64. The UK already has a national climate/weather service. It’s called the Met Office. ‘Nuff said…

  65. FatBigot (22:09:09) : What service can possibly be provided in relation to climate? “Service” is the key here. What service can it provide?
    Why isn’t it obvious? They can service the taxpayer in the same way the farmer pays to have the cow “serviced” …

  66. E.M.Smith (22:40:26) :
    “Wansbeck (17:38:09) : As population density increases and resources become scarcer we will need a better understanding of climate variations to assist planning and avoid disaster.
    And exactly what resources are going to become scarcer? ”
    I accept your point that the earth has plentiful potential resources but to be of any use the resource must be in the right place at the right time.
    This is not the case even in formerly advanced nations like the UK. One of the wettest countries in the world yet if the sun comes out for two days there’s talk of a water shortage. The solution proposed by the powers that be is not to improve the abysmal infrastructure but to put a brick in your toilet cistern. Then there was the fiasco of the transport system grinding to a halt due to several mm of snow. ‘Experts’ had said that climate change would make snowfall so rare that local authorities couldn’t justify the expense of stockpiling grit.
    I do believe that there are cyclic climate variations which require a better understanding but which are ignored by attributing everything to AGW. It would help the Port of London Authority decide if they need to invest in an icebreaker for the next LIA 😉
    As for your remark:
    “All they will do is plan you out of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
    (The scare stories already dampen the happiness …)”
    They’ve failed with me so far. My water comes from the largest man-made lake in Europe and I have avoided having a meter fitted. No bricks in my cisterns and I happily enjoy many a gratuitous flush.
    Yes, life is to short to spend time unblocking drains 😉

  67. I say NO, for many of the reasons stated above. I think the only thing we need now is the Coalition to Ban Coalitions.
    Nods to David Allan Coe.

  68. OT: Anybody know what happened to Icecap? It’s been offline for two days now.

  69. This is increadibly depressing. Just what we need; Goebbels telling us repeatedly that hot is cold, up is down, and oppression is freedom. Of course, its not too different from what’s already going on.

  70. This is plain politics. A new beauracracy is created that will undoubtedly be led, staffed, and tied to other liberal-led beauracracies (e.g., GISS, EPA). To turn Lincoln, it is beauracracy of the liberals, for the liberals, by the liberals. It will no doubt be used in an authoritative style similar to the IPCC but for domestic consumption. And it gives the Feds yet another leg in the water, so to speak. Completely unnecessary.

  71. “utilize our expertise” Whaaa??? The only thing the feds are good at is putting a political spin on things and wasting money.
    An anecdote:
    My Daughter’s company does work for FEMA. At the end of each project, they have to gather all documents relating to the project and provide it to the Feds. Fine! However, they have to format it 4 different ways for 4 different government agencies. OK, paying this company for the time to do that is bad enough, but think about what this really means: There are 4 government employees who all do the same job reviewing and filing the same information. This also raises the question of whether there are 4 complete government agencies doing exactly the same work.
    Expertise? Horse Hockey (self edited).

  72. Well I think a “National Climate Service” would improve our climate immensely. With our national climate bureaucracy fragmented the way it is now, our climate is just all over the place! Look at the difference between Florida and Nebraska!

  73. We need a National Climate Service like we need a national eugenics service.
    This is a transparent way to steal more money from taxpayers and to reward charlatans.

  74. Yes we should do it, Create a Department of Climate Truth and Conformity with a Divsion of Politcally Correct Climate Speak
    DCTC/PCCS – Does not seem as bad as an acronym…
    We can then be sure of only the most accurate and acceptable data for desemination to the people. The message is getting muddled because of all the sources of data keeping each other honest and the lack of coherent vocabulary that must only…
    Invoke images of Unicorns in Meadows being Killed by Oil Corporations as they defile the planet and the Government with the “full faith and backing” ( read massive amounts of tax revenue) of the people is the only entity capable of standing in the way of these evil monliths of Capitalism that sacrifice the environment daily in the name of the cursed profit!
    All Hail Central Planning! All Hail Group Think via Manipulation of Science! All Hail Massive Government Spending! All Hail Government the New Masters of the Climate!
    Ok I got carried away… actually it is a very bad idea because of the real danger of central point distribution of data can lead to biases in when and how information is made available and reduce the innovation being applied in interpreting said data.

  75. Heidegger’s critique of anthropocentric humanism, his call for humanity to learn to “let things be,” his notion that humanity is involved in a “play” or “dance” with earth, sky, and gods, his meditation on the possibility of an authentic mode of “dwelling” on the earth, his complaint that industrial technology is laying waste to the earth, his emphasis on the importance of local place and “homeland,” his claim that humanity should guard and preserve things, instead of dominating them — all these aspects of Heidegger’s thought help to support the claim that he is a major deep ecological theorist.
    http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

  76. The semi-joking aside, some of the comments have brushed against the potential ‘utility’ of this new entity. And doubtlessly, some of the other observations are correct: information control, to include ‘co-ordination’ of data…just as a clever gang of thieves insure they have the same ‘cover story’ when they’re brought in for questioning.
    But I see something entirely different; I see proto-‘administrative’ zones. That’s not to say they won’t start out as advertised, but I can ‘game’ out the logistical/administrative difficulties of a national GHG/CO2 control authority [among other things…]. As much as the Beltway Critters would like to be the center of the universe, a cap-and-trade [authority] network needs more than one command node.
    Granted, this a ‘gut’ hunch on my part, but you should note that these ‘districts’ aren’t totally distinct weather zones, but they are pretty distinct geo-political zones.
    Just my 2 cents.

  77. Wansbeck (17:38:09) : As population density increases and resources become scarcer we will need a better understanding of climate variations to assist planning and avoid disaster.

    1. You’re implying that population densities must increase. You’re obviously not aware that birth rates have been declining. In many regions the birth rate is below the replacement rate, so population growth would be negative if immigration was not happening. You probably also don’t get out of town much and observe there is plenty of empty space.
    2. Many resources are being recycled, and with cheap nuclear-generated electricity more can be recycled (in a laboratory anything from a landfill can be broken down to component elements, but we need industrial versions of the equipment). You’re also not thinking outside your nest. There are plenty of raw materials in asteroids.
    3. We need better understanding of everything. And desire and funding to do what is needed to execute good planning and avoid disaster. New York City needs to be moved due to geologic, weather, tsunami, and glacial problems, but is it likely to be moved? And a sea level rise of six inches or six feet won’t be enough to move it — except maybe cause the whole city to be raised several feet as Galveston did. A few degrees in temperature won’t affect New York City as much as if it was farmland on the edge of a desert (and I’m not saying what kind of temperature change would cause what kind of change to the farmland).

  78. Cpt. Charles,
    “As much as the Beltway Critters would like to be the center of the universe, a cap-and-trade [authority] network needs more than one command node.”
    Good point, all those new green soldiers…. i mean workers need bases…
    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded”.
    Just some more billions to make sure we are all green as we should be…

  79. A National Climate Service might end up with the job of rating how well polar bears and bigfoot tribes are doing. If officials don’t have a population census, they’ll issue official ratings of the sizes of estimated living zones and use that to control what is allowed to affect those regions. Until someone is able to point out their errors.

  80. Code Tech:

    The current zones are in relatively logical locations for their respective climates.

    Some of the zones might make sense, but I don’t understand how the climate can be similar within the People’s Soviet Western Regional Climate Center, which contains both Alaska and Hawaii.

  81. “AnonyMoose (12:31:43) :
    A National Climate Service might end up with the job of rating how well polar bears and bigfoot tribes are doing.”
    I hadn’t thought of it before, but since bigfoot is obviously a relative of the yeti, it makes perfect sense that bigfoot must be just as endangered as the polar bears. Thanks, anon, for pointing that out.
    Mike

  82. I do believe that a new national climate service should be commenced. With that being said, I would hope the new service would have state of the art monitoring equipment to replace outdated and erroneous equipment. Placing such equipment in well-sited areas and adjusted properly for urban heat island effects. All data gathered should be transparent and since this being a tax-payer funded operation all scientific studies written off such data should allow free public access to such papers. This new service should serve as a climatic data clearinghouse without agenda or political motive. With that being said I would also hope those working under the name of this service aren’t global warming blowhards, strive for accuracy and avoid making predictions of when the sea-ice will melt away in the arctic or when we’ll all be feral dehydrated warring tribes of climate refugees dodging methane fireballs burping out of the ocean whilst living on the last habitable continent on the planet, Antarctica.
    Picture it, billions of people standing on some ice sheet like penguins in a blizzard thinking, “Gee, I think we were duped” but too afraid to admit it for fear of being branded a heretic.

  83. The National Public Radio program Living on Earth broadcast an with interview Jane Lubchenco this morning (Saturday, 9 May 2009). The purpose of the National Climate Service will be to prove global warming. You can hear it here: http://www.loe.org/

  84. AnonyMoose (11:36:25) :
    “Wansbeck (17:38:09)
    ….. 1. You’re implying that population densities must increase. You’re obviously not aware that birth rates have been declining.”
    I am not implying that anything must increase and I am well aware of declining birth rates and that the birth rate of immigrants has tended towards the norm after a generation or two but people are still moving from rural to urban areas although our banker friends have reversed some of this as unemployed manufacturing workers return to the country.
    I wonder if any bankers will receive a Nobel Prize for their part in reducing carbon emissions 😉
    As for “You probably also don’t get out of town much and observe there is plenty of empty space.”
    I live in North East England and frequently visit miles of beaches so unspoilt that they have been used by the Alberta tourist office in a recent promotion much to their embarrassment.
    This is the region where much of the industrial revolution started. Within a short drive I can visit the first house in the world to be lit by incandescent electric lights ( powered by hydro-electricity), the worlds first turbine powered ship or the home of much of the worlds railways yet, as you say, there is still plenty of open space.
    Sadly there is nothing left of the shipyards that once built a large part of the world’s navies. As I write the last of the cranes are being transported for use in India.
    Unless they’ve been captured by pirates!

Comments are closed.