While still carrying the label “Development Prototype”, the website looks mostly functional. www.climate.gov
It is the effort of the new NOAA Climate Services division – your tax dollars at work. They write:
At this time, the NCS Portal prototype only scratches the surface of the many climate datasets, products, and services available across NOAA. This effort will gradually transition from a prototype to an operational status over the next year. Our plan is to actively gather user feedback through focus groups, usability studies, and informal communications. Over the next several years, we will expand the NCS Portal’s scope and functionality in a user-driven manner to greatly enhance the accessibility and usefulness of NOAA’s climate resources. As this effort continues to expand in future years, partners from outside of NOAA will become involved in this effort. The NCS Portal will be a central component of NOAA’s commitment to enhancing the access to and extensibility of climate data and services, timely articles and information, education resources, and tools for engagement and decision-making.
Here’s the main page, which is not fully shown because it is so tall:
No Antarctic ice and the graphs only go back to 1918? How convenient.
Was Hansen in charge of this project?
Well it’s a place to go. Looks a lot political rather than scientific. One of their featured seven second movies clips about the failed oyster harvest wonders if ocean acidification may be the cause. OOoops ! seems that those chaps haven’t yet read about that experiment that showed that some snail shells grew very nicely in a less alkaline (more acidic ?) water, compared to the normal sea alkalinity.
Well they might try going to some place where there are oysters to fish for them; rather than trying where there aren’t any. Any fisherman knows that 10% of the water contains 90% of the fish.
Last time I checked, the New Zealand Green Shell Mussels were doing just fine in the cool waters of Cook Straight; well in the Marlborough sounds off the strait if you want to be nit picky.
Cooler waters of course should be less alakline, if you believe that CO2 dissolves more readily in colder water.
But as I said; it’s a place to go; we shall see how it develops .
Bah. The NOAA site weather.gov regularly misrepresents the temperature. They’re regularly off by 5 to 10 degrees, TO THE WARM of course. Example:
The other night (Nov 30) at 10:53pm the temperature in my area was reported as 43F degrees. An hour prior to that there was frost on my wife’s car. I specifically remember taking out the trash around 9:30pm and noting frost on my wife’s car. Then checked the temp later at 11:00 (NOAA updated at 10:53pm). Get that? That’s easily 10 degrees off to the warm. Unless it got warmer in that one hour? NOT! It progressively got colder all night long. My wife’s car (onboard) reported 27F around 2:00AM (she works graveyard shift). Guess what NOAA reported the low for that evening? 33. I’m serious. I went back and checked their 3 day history which shows an hourly reporting. No freezing temps recorded in that entire 12 hour period.
Now, you get that, don’t you? According to NOAA it never got cold enough to frost, but there was frost “on the ground” for a solid 10 hours. Think this is a fluke? It ain’t. This is regularly the case. I’ve been watching for about a year now, and weather.gov is always (ALWAYS) warmer than the actual temperature.
I know, I know, it’s all explainable and quite the norm. I live on a hill, or down in a valley, or this and that. I don’t buy it. There’s something rotten and the foul stench is becoming unavoidable. Unless… maybe I live in some weird vortex where it’s always 5 or 10 degrees cooler than anywhere else… wow… maybe I should contact Al Gore… my property could hold the key to ending AGW…
I also noticed in their featured articles that they seem to confuse weather events like monsoons and floods with climate. I would think that global warming would enhance the monsoons. See Frank Wentz, et al SCIENCE July-7 2007. “How Much more Rain will Global Warming bring ?”
One deg C rise in mean global surface temperature gives a 7% increase in total global evaporation, total atmospheric moisture , and total global precipitation. Fancy that; they are all the same. Might give one the idea that the total atmospheric moisture might be simply the integral of the total global evaportion, less the integral of the total global precipitation, so they all change at the same rate (over time).
Well that can’t be true of course even though they observed that, because the GCMs say the evap and precip are 3 to 7 times lower than is actually measured; and the observed data has to be made to conform to the GCMs.
I’m sure the monsoons are doing just fine; and the people who happen to be in their path are happy with that. If you aren’t one of those people, then I’m sure you believe the sky is falling also. We experience that same effect here in Califonia; sometimes it rains, and some times it doesn’t.
You have to purchase the data from NASA that our tax dollars developed(?) WT…Heck?
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/ancsum/ACS
Riiiiiiiigt! Too bad the data is crap. 1934 shows as a negative anomaly.
Hey, when I open the new NOAA page, the Climate Change Dashboard shows the temperature graph up to 2000 — not to 2009.
Duh….thus it looks like it is going up, but (I hate to use this corny line….) ‘hides the decline’ of the last few years.
Anyone else get this view on the first opening of the page?
Kip
RE: KipHansen (10:14:13) :
You can drag the date bar to make it to current, but why it would default like that is odd
What gets me is that the Sea Level report showing right next to the Arctic Sea Ice Extent report seems to indicate a causal relationship between the two… which is specious, because the sea ice floats
GISS spewing out in all its squalor.
just left this comment on their site
Why have you selected the time range of 1974 to 1999 as the default range? 1999 was 10 years ago! The average Joe is not going to know to change the date range.
People are coming to this site for up to date info. Please change the default date range to end at 2009.
Plus, in the light of your current Climategate debacle, it looks like you are trying to hide something.
Let’s hope they are not as creative with their numbers as recovery.gov.
I just went back to look at the other comments and at the site and it seems they are as creative with numbers as the recovery.gov folks. Imagine that!
thanks, anthony!
you prompted my following response to NOAA:
“I appreciate the graphic representation of this data, however, as presented, it necessarily displays such a statistically narrow range of values that it is, technically speaking, not representative of any relevant geologic or human time scale.
It would be much better, when speaking of “climate change” to present the data of a thousand years or so, which is far more appropriate from any serious scientific and statistical point of view, but STILL is representative of only .000025% of earth’s history or 25% of recorded history for which man could be argued to have played any significant climate role.
Furthermore, as you are well aware, 1934 was a warmer year than 1998, and that information should be plainly evident – it is not, and your chart is innacurate. The potential consequences and inferred conclusions of your decision to inherently, and errantly, present such a narrow slice of data is inappropriate and skews the implications of the data.
As scientists, professionals, and arbiters of data being referenced and cited in so many aspects of our culture for legislative, tax, and judicial purposes you owe the public – and your own reputations – adherence to the most stringent standards of professionalism and scientific representation of data.
Live up to it a higher standard; or step aside and leave it to those who know better and have more respect for the heralded halls of science.
Michael R (21:56:08) :
They had to Hide the Decline maybe?
Go to this page at NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/media.html and email every one listed on that page asking them where tax payers can find information about Climategate on their new web page funded by our tax dollars.
It looks like the AGW talking points are now the AGW official alarmism: click
There is a “tell us what you think” section on that website.
I’ve started a series of blog posts on some of the materials at the NOAA website, starting with those geared toward educators.
http://climatereflections.wordpress.com