From the White House, courtesy of John Podesta and John P. Holdren, comes this announcement of a new initiative to provide repackaged NOAA/NCDC data in a way that supposedly helps “state and local leaders on the front lines of climate change”. It comes with an emphasis on the supposed climate link to extreme weather events, that even the IPCC backpedaled on and Nature said in an editorial aren’t real enough to endorse because it is a dead issue.
The initiative was unveiled on Wednesday and claims to be aimed at giving communities data to prepare for the effects of climate change, saying “it is impossible for them to ignore the consequences”. And, what if they do? Will these communities be dubbed “denier communities” and perhaps sealed off from the rest of the world to prevent their thinking from leaking out to infect other communities?
![under-the-dome21[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/under-the-dome211.jpg?quality=83)
So, with that in mind, here is the press release from the White House:
Climate Data Initiative Launches with Strong Public and Private Sector Commitments
Across the country, state and local leaders are on the front lines of climate change—and it is impossible for them to ignore the consequences. In 2012 alone, extreme weather events caused more than $110 billion in damages and claimed more than 300 lives.
While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, we know that our changing climate is making many kinds of extreme events more frequent and more severe. Rising seas threaten our coastlines. Dry regions are at higher risk of destructive wildfires. Heat waves impact health and agriculture. Heavier downpours can lead to damaging floods.
Even as we work to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and expand renewable energy generation, we need to take steps to make our communities more resilient to the climate-change impacts we can’t avoid—some of which are already well underway.
That’s why today, delivering on a commitment in the President’s Climate Action Plan, we are launching the Climate Data Initiative, an ambitious new effort bringing together extensive open government data and design competitions with commitments from the private and philanthropic sectors to develop data-driven planning and resilience tools for local communities. This effort will help give communities across America the information and tools they need to plan for current and future climate impacts.
The Climate Data Initiative builds on the success of the Obama Administration’s ongoing efforts to unleash the power of open government data. Since data.gov, the central site to find U.S. government data resources, launched in 2009, the Federal government has released troves of valuable data that were previously hard to access in areas such as health, energy, education, public safety, and global development. Today these data are being used by entrepreneurs, researchers, tech innovators, and others to create countless new applications, tools, services, and businesses.
Data from NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies will be featured on climate.data.gov, a new section within data.gov that opens for business today. The first batch of climate data being made available will focus on coastal flooding and sea level rise. NOAA and NASA will also be announcing an innovation challenge calling on researchers and developers to create data-driven simulations to help plan for the future and to educate the public about the vulnerability of their own communities to sea level rise and flood events.
These and other Federal efforts will be amplified by a number of ambitious private commitments. For example, Esri, the company that produces the ArcGIS software used by thousands of city and regional planning experts, will be partnering with 12 cities across the country to create free and open “maps and apps” to help state and local governments plan for climate change impacts. Google will donate one petabyte—that’s 1,000 terabytes—of cloud storage for climate data, as well as 50 million hours of high-performance computing with the Google Earth Engine platform. The company is challenging the global innovation community to build a high-resolution global terrain model to help communities build resilience to anticipated climate impacts in decades to come. And the World Bank will release a new field guide for the Open Data for Resilience Initiative, which is working in more than 20 countries to map millions of buildings and urban infrastructure.
Every citizen will be affected by climate change—and all of us must work together to make our communities stronger and more resilient to its impacts. By taking the enormous data sets regularly collected by NASA, NOAA, and other agencies and applying the ingenuity, creativity, and expertise of technologists and entrepreneurs, the Climate Data Initiative will help create easy-to-use tools for regional planners, farmers, hospitals, and businesses across the country—and empower America’s communities to prepare themselves for the future.
John Podesta is a Counselor to the President. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/19/climate-data-initiative-launches-strong-public-and-private-sector-commitments
=============================================================
To this WH initiative claiming a warmer climate is making weather more severe and that all we need is a Google Earth visualization to help state and local leaders see this, I say this graph is also “impossible to ignore”:
Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr. says in a WUWT comment:
I recommend readers look at the minority AGU Statement I prepared and contrast that with the AAAS report’s statements in http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf. My statement is
Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]. Minority Statement in response to AGU Position Statement on Climate Change entitled: “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action” released on 8/5/13. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf
The AAAS report is even worse than the AGU and AMS Statements (and I thought that would be hard to do). I know several of the authors of the AAAC report, and respect their science within their immediate area of expertise. However, the blatant advocacy and absurd statements such as
“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking
smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”
show that this report is just political theater.
There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.
Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly contact to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.
Another example (and their are many in this report) is
“decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of these other factors.”
is counter to established research which shows, for example, the first order importance of other human climate forcings; e.g. see
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
They also ignore the recent recognition of the heightened importance of natural climate forcings and feedbacks.
This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
Related issue: Yesterday in the responses to thread “Modern Magic – Clean Energy by Wire” I posted info on NASA supported research conducted by Research Associate, PhD student at UMD, Safa Motesharrei and I gave the link to this work at the UMD website: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/handy-paper-for-submission-2.pdf
This is website of Dr. Eugenia Kalnay, Professor at UMD.
Intriguingly, today this link does not work. In Google Scholar the reference to this deleted article is below:
[PDF] A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction
S Motesharrei, J Rivas, E Kalnay – 2012 – atmos.umd.edu
Abstract There are widespread concerns that current trends in population and resource-use
are unsustainable, but the possibilities of an overshoot and collapse remain unclear and
controversial. Collapses have occurred frequently in the past five thousand years, and are …
Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save More
This reference was deleted possibly because of publication of new work announced very recently- “Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies”.
This work was supported by NASA as follows from Acknowledgments:
We are grateful to Profs. Matthias Ruth, Victor Yakovenko, Herman Daly, Takemasa Miyoshi, JimCarton, Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm, Ning Zeng, and Drs. Robert Cahalan and Steve Penny for many useful discussions. Study of the \Equitable Society” scenarios (i.e., with Workers and Non-Workers), the scenario presented in section 5.2.5, in particular, was suggested by V. Yakovenko. We would also like to thank anonymous reviewer No. 1 for having highlighted to us the importance of the capability of HANDY to naturally produce irreversible collapses, which is not found in earlier models. We would especially like to thank the editors of this journal for alerting us to the model and work done by Brander and Taylor, of which we were unaware, and allowing us to revise our article to account for this new information.
This work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC grant NNX12AD03A.
Are we ok with the government agencies funding political activists instead of scientists?
Where do I go for my grant ap?
How do we know that NOAA and NASA aren’t fudging the data?
So the meatheads are going to give us data that is already
Available on the web. Brilliant! Of course thier data
will be what they
Want us to believe ,not the truth. Total propaganda from
Potus . He can’t hide his lying eyes…..
Chip Knappenberger,
Surface temps are certainly lower than models, though the divergence is no where near as severe as in the mid troposphere: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0214_Fig3_ZH.jpg
I can’t help but think that the mid-tropospheric comparison was chosen specifically because that is an area where models perform the worst. Its just somewhat odd because, as far as I can remember, I’ve rarely if ever even seen a mid-tropospheric temperature series displayed before. TLS, TLT, and surface are all far more commonly used.
REPLY: I can’t help but think, that NASA GISS, who as a space agency has access to all sorts of satellite data, chooses the highly irregular, biased, and over-corrected surface temperature record specifically because that is an area where their alarming claims perform the best. – Anthony
Walt says are we ok with funding political
Activists?…..
The feds ARE political activists!
There are some interesting datasets on the site. NOAA has a “severe weather data inventory” tool. Check it out at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/swdi/#TileSearch
This data spans 1995-2013 and includes
–storm cells from nexrad
–hail signatures form nexrad
–mesocyclone signatures
–tornado signatures
–preliminary local storm reports
–lightning strikes
To get to “extreme weather is increasing” they would have to track all of these, I guess, for many different locations and do a comparison.
Anthony,
If you don’t like surface data, compare models to lower tropospheric observations. This has been done before, and the models don’t look particularly good. No need to invoke an obscure dataset (mid-tropospheric temperatures) to maximize the divergence between models and observations.
REPLY: I didn’t invoke it, but the fact stands, there’s still a divergence to surface data and GISS ignores satellite data. Go put your BEST spin on that however you like – Anthony
Stephen Richards says:
Zeke Hausfather says: [” … “]
You know full well why. Take your AGW agenda elsewhere unless you want to contribute some real, honest science. That’s if you can, of course.
Zeke can’t. Not without losing his financial backing.
Zeke is part of Yale’s Media propaganda arm [note other swivel-eyed lunatics on the board, like David Appell]. It is financed by Jeremy Grantham, a “carbon” scare believer who follows a long list of folks who have the Midas touch in stocks, but are certifiable crazies when they stray outside their specialty.
Grantham is the truest of true believers, and he puts a lot of his $billions into promoting the climate scare. [“The Yale Forum is grateful for the generous financial support of the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment…”].
Zeke benefits, so Zeke will not rock that boat.
It’s funny how they choose when to ignore the IPCC’s position on extreme weather when it suits them. They do tell us to listen to the science. It wasn’t about science after all. LOL.
We must prepare for extreme weather.
NASA produces the MSU data used by both UAH and RSS.
I suspect the chart you show might be mislabeled. I think its comparing models to observations ONLY over the tropics in the mid-troposphere. Its remarkably similar to this plot: http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Christy-fig-1.jpg
A more interesting plot would be models compared to observations for the full lower troposphere (or mid troposphere if you want). Roy had one awhile back: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
REPLY: Yes, NASA produces that data, but they don’t use publish it as a climate data set (left to UAH and RSS), or use it to argue that we all need lifestyle changes like Jim Hansen was allowed to do based on his wonky self adjusted, always higher GISS data. Note also the number of models differ in the plots. The graph s from WSJ for the article that Christy and McNider wrote about why John Kerry is wrong. Given your previous comment about “level of name calling” can you put out where you objected to Kerry’s broadly labeling everyone who disagrees as a member of the “Flat Earth Society”? – Anthony
Just more propaganda and an “art” contest thrown in to entertain the kiddies.
to provide repackaged NOAA/NCDC data
Is this irony or the Gore effect? NOAA for February just came out (my bold):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
“The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F).”
dbstealey,
Suggesting that I’m in the pay of “big green” is as silly as suggesting that Anthony is a pawn of “big oil”. Lets keep the conversation above the level of name calling.
Billy Liar says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:10 am
Should the dome be over DC?
Billy – I would prefer to build a 30′ wall around DC, and fill it with water.
Some days, I tend towards replacing water with sulphuric acid.
I think that the WSJ article by McNider and Christy takes values between 20S and 20N for the middle troposphere (where the missing “hot spot” in observations really stands out) and calls them the model and observation results for the whole middle troposphere. It this is the case, how is that any better than what Jones and co. did for the WMO report cover?
Today’s American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE SmartBrief carries an article that should win an award for mixed messages – a technology that converts smog to water vapor (a greenhouse gas) and “carbon pollution”.
[begin quote]
Cleaning air with smog-eating building surfaces
http://architizer.com/blog/smog-eating-facades-and-the-future-of-our-air-quality/
Buildings with smog-eating facades have become a trend in which surfaces such as concrete and metal are treated with a layer of titanium dioxide, for a surface that transforms pollutants into water vapor and carbon dioxide, Matt Shaw writes. The solution was applied to the thermoformed plastic shells on the facade of the Manuel Gea Gonzalez Hospital in Mexico City. Another example is the “Wendy” project, which used the same process on fabric and was able to eliminate smog equivalent to emissions from 260 cars in New York City, Shaw writes. Architizer.com (3/13)
[end quote]
A \sarc might be needed for my introductory comment. Here it is: \sarc
These people are not stupid, they are not ignorant, they are not ill advised, they are not wasting resources, etc, etc. They are cold-calculating and deliberate people, with a laser-like focus on their goals. There is only one end-game being pursued and climate has nothing to do with it.
One of the great developments of late is how the Harvard-Smithsonian team produced some confirmation of Guth’s mathematical cosmology. Amazingly, the observations bore out his model. Hence, back slapping all around.
Climate scientists should hold off on back slapping for awhile. Their models have been the primary vehicles for advancing global warming concepts and policies. But, the models do not sync up with the real world. So, instead of dumping the models, which are not independent of each other in the way people think of the word independent, there has been more time and money, spent on finding new reasons, for why what is being observed, is in fact consistent with what has been predicted. This has all led to very tortuous and convoluted explanations and papers and studies and to a push to really “step up!” global warming communications to simplify the message.
The global warming message is very simple, and people do understand it: the earth is warming, a lot, and it’s catastrophic.
But, the climate models are wrong. The earth isn’t warming a lot. So, people don’t take the message very seriously–except as a sign of the scientific process gone awry.
Excerpt from the press release from the White House:
“While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, we know that our changing climate is making many kinds of extreme events more frequent and more severe.”
=============
Same old story, the bad stuff is “our” fault.
Good news leaves our saviors out of a/their job.
They think we can’t see thru the thin veneer.
Can’t believe the release said “we know”.
OK, they are too in-your-face to ignroe.
How about we just laugh at them?
Ridule their pretentious deceptive arrogance. Make satire about their war on weather.
Point out that Sec. of State Kerry is reduced to offering climate fear lectures as the strongest response the United now makes Internationally. That the AGW fear mongers have to atack those who disagree as somehow corrupt and ‘anti-science’ for doubting their preposterous idea that the world is in danger from CO2. That they have to use every weahter event as a new *proof!* of climate doom, no matter how typical the weather.
There is no reasoning with climate kooks. They deserve the ridiucle and loss of status and historic levels of disdain they are accruing.
Every citizen is indeed affected by climate change–especially by having their tax dollars high jacked to support dubious “science” that is used to promote political pork.
Jumbo–Didn’t the White House try to convince the IPCC to make the Summary for Policymakers more extreme than the actual report itself? Apparently when the IPCC is not extreme enough, they head out over the cliff on their own initiative. That’s called leadership.
Here is a photograph showing the most sustainable and least energy using country in the world.
Is probably the UN and IPCC’s darling!
We should either all go there or else stay home and retain what we have.
I can think of a number of people who should stay there though.
http://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/northsouth-korea-at-night.jpg
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Does the White House realise the implications of CAGW, every single loss from every weather event being due to man-made CO2, everyone sends their bills to the UN for payment, USA liable for a large percentage? If that starts to happen I suspect govt will have a bit of a re-think.