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?
The UK already has a national climate/weather service. It’s called the Met Office. ‘Nuff said…
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” …
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 😉
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.
OT: Anybody know what happened to Icecap? It’s been offline for two days now.
Just get RealClimate to do it.
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.
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.
“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).
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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…
Adolfo Giurfa – I’ve read both of your posts. What’s your point?
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.
Code Tech:
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.
“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
Short answer – No.
Long answer – H___ No!!
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.
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/
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!