Well who doesn’t? Trouble is there just isn’t a good track record so far. And a GHG accounting system? Oh, that’s gonna hurt.
Date: July 22, 2010 202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
RELIABLE INFORMATION AND BETTER COMMUNICATION NEEDED TO GUIDE U.S. RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
WASHINGTON — A comprehensive national response to climate change should be informed by reliable data coordinated through climate services and a greenhouse gas monitoring and management system to provide timely information tailored to decision makers at all levels, says a report by the National Research Council. The report recommends several mechanisms for improving communication about climate science and responses and calls for a systematic framework for making and evaluating decisions about how to effectively manage the risks posed by climate change.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,” said Diana Liverman, co-chair of the panel that wrote the report, co-director of the Institute of Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a senior research fellow at Oxford University. “To make choices that are based on the best available science, government agencies, the private sector, and individuals need clear, accessible information about what is happening to the climate and to emissions. We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
The federal government needs to establish information and reporting systems — such as climate services and a greenhouse-gas accounting system –that provide a range of information on climate change and variability, observed changes and causes, potential impacts, and strategies for limiting emissions or adapting to impacts. Although the report does not specify a particular agency to lead federal efforts, it emphasizes the importance of coordination across the federal government and with state, local and private sector decision makers. Leadership might come through executive orders, existing units such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, an expanded U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, or new entities, the report suggests.
The new national system for providing climate services should inform decision makers and assist them in managing climate-related risks, the report says. It would coordinate data among several agencies and incorporate regional expertise. Information should be timely, authoritative, and based on rigorous natural and social science research and tailored to government- and private-sector users at the national, regional, and local levels, the report says. For example, agricultural producers trying to decide which crops to grow need timely seasonal forecasts, data on likely outbreaks of diseases or pests, and advice about long-term strategies for adapting to climate impacts; and forest and park managers need information to control fires and plan for longer-term ecosystem management.
The report identifies several key functions that should be included in climate services, such as enhanced observations and vulnerability analyses on a regional scale, sustained interaction with stakeholders and research to understand their needs, an international information component that provides data on global climate observations and impacts, and a central accessible web portal that encourages sharing of information. These functions might be overlooked if the services are based only on existing federal capabilities, the report says.
The proposed comprehensive greenhouse gas management system for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions should include a unified accounting protocol and a registry to track emissions at a detailed level. Monitoring is essential for developing effective emissions policies and verifying claims that emissions have been reduced, the report says. Such a system could build on the existing expertise of agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.
These systems should also be designed to evaluate and assess state and local government and private-sector responses, many of which already are occurring. For example, more than half of Americans live in states, counties, and cities that have enacted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many private companies are taking significant steps to reduce their carbon footprints. Federal policies should not unnecessarily supersede measures already being taken regionally or locally, the report says.
To effectively manage the serious risks posed by climate change, decision makers need to account for many uncertainties about the severity of impacts and options for responding to them and be able to modify their choices based on new information and experience. Therefore, decision makers in the public and private sectors need to implement an iterative risk management strategy that adapts to new information, conditions, or technologies that could affect climate change policies, the report says. To that end, the government could also review and revise programs such as federal crop and flood insurance in the light of the risks of climate change. The study panel endorsed steps already taken by federal financial and insurance regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to require disclosure requirements for climate change risks.
Although public beliefs and attitudes about climate often shift from year to year, recent opinion polls indicate that many Americans are concerned about climate change and want more information about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, the report says. It identifies several barriers to communication about climate change and recommends some strategies for overcoming them, such as urging federal agencies to support training for researchers on how to communicate complex climate change information and uncertainties to different audiences. In addition, a national task force of educators, government leaders, policymakers, and business executives should be established to improve climate change communication and education.
Consumers can play an important role in responding to climate change by choosing to reduce their energy use and selecting more energy-efficient products with lower emissions. The federal government should review and promote credible product standards and labels for consumers that provide information about energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, the report says. The government should also consider establishing an advisory service on these issues targeted at the public and small businesses.
The report is part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America’s Climate Choices, which also includes three other recently released reports. An overarching report to be released later this year will build on all four reports and other materials to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation’s efforts to confront climate change. For more information, visit http://americasclimatechoices.org.
The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee and panel members, who serve pro bono, are chosen by for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Research Council’s conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copies of Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
# # #
source: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12784
Has the Met Office last winter not taught these people any lessons[?]
Two good outlines on the new tactics to take in steering the propaganda stream into the latest opinion poll results, it looks like a call to arms for the warmistas, circle the wagons this is the latest rendition of the Environmental bible of Carbon social management programs.
Require all graduating collage students to have drank the kool aid, regulate the agricultural sectors to death, stop people from becoming independent off the grid, and write regulations coming out their B*TT, faster than they can be understood.
“The proposed comprehensive greenhouse gas management system for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions should include a unified accounting protocol and a registry to track emissions at a detailed level.”
Yikes – “…Detailed Levels…”! I was ‘procto-scoped’ a couple of years back and given the full detailed level emissions system inspection. Will my Procto-doctor have to report their findings to this new Central Scrutinizer system? Lord Almighty – Will I have to install a cataclysmic converter?!!!! I know beans are good for me…but I’m swearing them off and stocking up on BEANO!!! I don’t EVER want to know what a ‘Unified Accounting Proctocol’ is………… };>)
On a more genuine note, it’s time to head for a ‘cool one’ and contemplate the little critters along the shoreline. Here’s some appropriate music and an excellent video, to end the official work week and (hopefully) put a grin of joy on your face… Enjoy!
Time For A Cool Change – Little River Band
This reporting scheme will require extensive filing of expensive reports by business. Large business will be happy to comply because they can spread the costs over more units so this will be another advantage over their smaller competitors. Imported goods will gain another cost advantage. As business and revenue to the government declines, the government will have all the reporting requirements in place for a new CO2 tax to maintain the bureaucrats lifestyle and to buy votes from the soon to be unemployed.
Funny. The term “raw data” never appears in the release.
Regarding the article: Lots of intellectual flatulence, but not a word of substance.
WHERE is the science which incontrovertibly PROVES so-called man-made GLOBAL warming?
Richard Holle says:
July 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm
[–snip for brevity–]… and write regulations coming out their B*TT, faster than they can be understood.
You mean like this:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it…
.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
.
“Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.
.
“Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
.
Excerpted from ‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957
.
By Ayn Rand
Following her confirmation to head NOAA and to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Lubchenco declared that science would guide the agency and that she expects it to play a role in developing a green economy.[2]
EXECUTIVE PROFILE
Jane Lubchenco Ph.D.
Vice Chairman of Trustee Board, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
She wouldn’t bias would she?
“a greenhouse-gas accounting system”
So, they will assess the influence of water vapor (being the principle GHG) and the fact that we breathe out and transpire water vapor……oh well, perhaps my great-grandchildren will be safe and free….perhaps.
BS. An attempt to project more fallacious, altered data as fact. They no more want the truth than a criminal wants to see the video of his crime that he never knew about at his trial.
We have heard this line of thought a lot recently – climate scientists bemoaning about how poor their communication skills have been.
What they really mean is “if we only communicated this better, everyone would agree with us about the global warming”. What they also mean is “if we only communicated this better, only dumb people would not able to understand how serious global warming is”.
There might be one or two people on the planet who have not heard the tome of global warming so the problem is not “communication”, it is not providing enough factual evidence to back up the tome.
Just gotta love this all-and-zero set encompassing meaningless platitudes.
We want better data. Why? Are you admitting that what you’ve served up so far is questionable? If so, that’s admirably honest but, please, don’t offer up my current admiration as condoning your previous statements.
Do not swear that the mistakes of the past are somehow vindicated by your aspirations, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that the science is unassailable!
At best the Science is questionable, at worst given the abracadabra of acclamation is unquestionable. Unquestionable has been, and may still be, the trickiest barrier to hurdle.
If you don’t question then how are you qualified to answer?
More on Jane Lubchenco
Wastingto Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 21, 2009
‘Lubchenco (pronounced LOOB-chin-ko) takes the helm of NOAA at a time when the agency is poised to play a more prominent role as the Obama administration tackles the issue of climate change. The agency’s fiscal 2009 budget stands at nearly $4.4 billion, but under this month’s stimulus allocation, NOAA will receive a nearly 20 percent boost….’
‘In recent years, Lubchenco — who has conducted scientific studies of how global warming has affected the ocean — has made it clear that she sees climate change as a problem and thinks the federal government should do more to curb human-generated greenhouse gases. In October, she questioned the past administration’s approach to the issue, telling the Associated Press, “The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science. But I think that’s not true of Republicans in general. I know it’s not.” ‘
treehugger. com
Jul 10, 2009
Ocean Acidification is Global Warming’s Evil Twin
Lubchenco went out to talk about what she describes as global warming’s “equally evil twin”, ocean acidification. Saying that she thinks for many people the oceans remain “out of sight, out mind” and that that in general many people don’t fully appreciate the importance of oceans in the context of the whole climate system, Lubchenco stressed that increasing ocean acidity is a very genuine threat to much of the life in the oceans. “We’ve only begun to scratch the surface in terms of really understanding the full range of the impacts of ocean acidification,” she added.
You don’t need to wait for the government to protect you because i am introducing a new product onto the markey. Its called the “PPPIP”
The precautionary principle property insurance policy.
Here’s how it works. Suppose that your house is worth £250000. I will provide you with a PPPIP which will cover your property for as long as you own it.
The annual premium will only be 25% of the value and should the value of your property go down. then that reduction will be reflected in the premium. Pretty damn good EH.
Sounds expensive, “I dont think so” we are 95% certain that something bad is going to happen and if (and it could) happen in the next couple of years, you will be quids in.
Any takers
I didn’t think so
But the thing appears on the surface to mean they are going to use CO2 as a proxy for global warming.
Adder:
And what will the policies be aimed at? Temperature reduction? (not possible directly…)
No. She is talking about
That means that directions chosen will
And what does that mean? NASA-GISS and NOAA. Assessing
will be based on the word of the same people who have led them all into the CO2=AGW Chicken Little fantasy world.
CO2 to them is a proxy for AGW. THAT is what policy will be targeting.
GISS’ and NOAA’s fantasy* that the winter of our (and Europe’s and South America’s and Australia’s) discontent is the warmest year ever means they have been massaging the data the same way as before, so with numbers like those to alarm the policymakers, CO2 will stay as Public Enemy #1.
* I swear that when they re-calibrated the UAH process some time ago, they talked Spencer and Christy into over-adjusting the satellite raw numbers, since the satellites used to trail far behind the curve and now are the highest warming indicators as often as not. so now there is NO set of numbers that can be argued. When record cold winters on four continents mean nothing, none of their data – as processed – isn’t worth a thin dime. They took the one sane dataset away from us. I think Spenser and Christy were had. I could be wrong, but that is where I am putting my money.
Jane Lubchenco: Why did you sell your soul?
Frightening flow of garbage verbiage here… superstition, in the root meaning of the word… all built on serially, terminally flawed science. The communication we need is about the basics, raw data, checkable methods, the basic skeptics’ issues, the basics of Scientific Method missing, with a courteous reopening of communication with sceptics.
Funny thing about the warmist track record of communication, I keep on hearing them accusing the skeptics of the very sins of which they are, overall, guilty and of which the skeptics are, overall, NOT guilty, or only guilty in tiny amount by comparison. Like taking money from Exxon. Like unfair representation in the media. Like being unscientific non-experts not knowing what they are talking about.
Fred Haynie, you’ve done a tour de force of analysing carbon dioxide records. I hope Anthony elevates it to its own thread here some time. It deserves recognition IMO, as much as John Costella deserved it.
So, the authors of this….. op-ed, feel “we” (the great unwashed masses) are not doing enough to forestall the inevitable climate catastrophy. Yet, are willing to lead us to our salvation.
Considering the fact that CO2, was never mentioned in said op-ed (although “greenhouse gasses” were not forgotten), what is the basis for any of the suggestions contained in said op-ed.
If NAS wants reliable data, it will have to implement the surfacestation.org fix, and subtract the UHI from the raw data.
Otherwise, with the current state of measurement degradation, “How’s the weather” will have to do.
NOAA, GISS, CRU and HAD are either lost or sliding down a hole.
Who will get whacked by bitter cold come December in the N. Hemisphere?
Who will get buried in snow?
Reasoning with the Warmist Agenda is counter-productive.
We need forecasts that help people prepare, one winter at a time.
old construction worker says:
Your very funny!!!
Whata hoot!!!
…well… communicating with photoshopped pics of flooded houses didn’t work… I guess they have to try something
… not to mention, based on what I’m reading over at ClimateAudit, the message from the Scientists to the Tax-payer is “SCREW YOU!”
The same old climate fraudsters would be pulling the strings here, the same old manipulated/mangled/tortured/ arbitrarily changed would be used. BS is BS, no matter how it is packaged.
The only difference would be some extra layers of bureaucracy – such is the way of governments everywhere.
Re: Milwaukee Bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Let’s wait for the tender, and put our own bid in. I’m sure collectively we have the skill and knowledge to DBO a reliable data and metadata repository. Challenge may be to get the climate scientists to define schema for the metadata, because the raw data should be sacrosanct. I’m sure we could do it for less than a billion, and still have money left over to throw some really good parti.. I mean stakeholder & outreach meetings.