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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Air Force One already converted to glider?
Zeke Hausfather,
It’s more than a ‘suggestion’: I documented what others wrote. I have more documentation showing that you have an agenda. The fact is that you are supported at least in part by Grantham. So is Bob Ward. I didn’t label you a ‘rat snake’ like Donna Laframboise did of Ward. I would, if that’s what I thought. But I don’t think you sink to Ward’s level.
But if you don’t like the financial relationship disclosed, then cut your ties to Jeremy Grantham. Whoever filled his head with the “carbon” scare is probably well rewarded. It is complete nonsense, but that scare has led directly to real threats against scientific skeptics, whose only “crime” is to have a different point of view than alarmists’ approve of. So when you complain about name calling, look at the guy in the mirror. That’s the guy who condones name calling – and worse – against skeptics.
I also called you no names. The only one I called a lunatic was your bud David Appell, and I believe that is correct.
BTW, how’s your pal Ward doing?
“impossible to ignore”? I thought we were supposed to “forget the facts”. Maybe the White House meant “ignore the impossible”.
From comments to the associated LA Times story, an acronym from “friedfish2718” that should seriously be considered for adoption in lieu of CAGW…
There is no need to invoke mid tropospheric temperature predictions vs observations, but there is no harm in it either. They are part and parcel of the climate models’ outputs (and, iteratively, their inputs), and that they are wrong is every bit as determinative of the error of those models as are lower trop temps. Wrong is wrong, and in an interative model that features interdependent parts, wrong in one part demonstrates wrong in all.
This true in the general case, but even more so when a component of the attributive power of the models is alleged to be their ability to “fingerprint” the pet theory around which they are designed. According to “global warming” theory, the presence of a mid tropospheric hot spot is supposed to not only demonstrate the effect of “global warming” but definitively attribute that effect to the pet cause – anthro CO2 – as well. No mid trop hotspot, no “global warming”, irrespective of how well the LT predictions might match observations. And they don’t.
The “global warming” scam operates in large part by claiming comprehensive knowledge of the climate system, but by cherry picking individual components for very situational story telling.
For the first twenty five years of the scare, everything was about globally averaged surface temperature. That was, until GAST topped out and began descending. Then it became “don’t look at surface temp, look at ocean heat content”. Similarly, it was “MT hotspot proves it is ‘global warming'”, until the MT hotspot failed to materialize. Then you’re back to “don’t look at MT, look at surface temp”. No one even bothers to look at regional subsets of any of the temps, let alone other parameters like precip. Perhaps if one of them begins tracking observations reasonably well, it will become port for the next storm.
The term for this particular fallacy is ad hoc. It isn’t science. It is what happens when people have a faith commitment to a conclusion, rather than a method of concluding.
“The Administration is proposing to cut over $9 million from the ‘core’ programs of state and local air pollution control agencies, including much-needed monitoring and emissions inventory activities.”
“The Obama budget includes $1 billion for a Climate Resilience Fund, which invests in research to better understand the projected impacts of a changing climate and help communities plan and prepare.”
They’re trying to make it sound like it’s for the communities’ own good that money is being taken away from them and bestowed upon the Holdren think-tanks.
Apparently the WSJ ran an editorial yesterday talking about the INternet handover I mentioned. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447362610955656?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj
What I find the weirdest is the data DOES support just one stance given….
“Dry regions are at higher risk of destructive wildfires.”
The weirdest part though, is that the single point that is reality based, they STILL seem to ignore the ACTUAL reason. More co2 means more biomass, especially in drier areas. Which means fires in dry areas will be worse. Ive never personally seen someone among the devout point this out, instead they push ideas that the data simply doesn’t back. It isnt “warming” that causes dry areas to have worse fires, but more co2 does lead to more plants, which would mean more fuel for fires. BIZARRE.
THIS IS TERRIFYING.>> how do we break their hold on “truth”?? Or will I wake up in a prison some day… “what are you in for”… “oh me? I am scientifically literate”
Can someone confirm that the dome picture is by Gerald Adams and is from the cover of Stephen Kings 2009 book The Dome? If so it seems apropos that they are using an image from a horror story.
The misallocation of resources to address the non-issue of CAGW has arguably caused much otherwise preventable mortality and morbidity. It is thus arguable that this misallocation is a crime against humanity. Perhaps there should be appropriate action taken against those who foster such misallocation with malice aforethought.
just in case
Is it possible for climate change to make weather less severe?
“Climate Data Initiative”
Here I thought it was the “Smoke and Mirrors Initiative”.
Randy says:
March 19, 2014 at 3:16 pm
“THIS IS TERRIFYING.>> how do we break their hold on “truth”?? Or will I wake up in a prison some day… “what are you in for”… “oh me? I am scientifically literate”
….me? Life without parole. I’m an engineer.
Hmmm…is Zeke calling the mid tropospheric “obscure” because some years back the models were making this the whole enchilada but now the whole enchilada has disappeared/”been eaten by the ocean” only to be vomited up at some point TBD?
No fair!
The AAAS political theater is, like the Senate Democrat pajama party last week, an attempt to distract from their serious political problems for the 2014 midterm elections by trying to create a groundswell for action where action isn’t justified. But the truth is, nobody really cares about this stuff. See:
http://www.gallup.com/video/167915/americans-worried-economy-climate-change.aspx
Democrats, like warmists, just never learn.
China ought to go for this in a big way.
That dome looks like it might make a good greenhouse after adding a little extra CO2.
Robin,
Thank you for beating me to the point. The Socialist already have control of the vast majority of Media through their complete control of Education and Government through their control of finance and Unions and institutions dependent on Federal dollars. Think, Crony Capitalism on steroids. The obvious next step on the chess board would be to limit the access of information to their opposition which would be to turn the Internet over to others already in tow and then paint any who disagree as ‘deniers’ and foment anything they define as’hate speech’.
I grew up in the States when there were three TV stations then PBS came along and if you had any sense of reason, you knew you where being lied to and led by the nose.
I know Antnee doesn’t care for this tack on the issue and neither do I, but this ceased to be a science issue a very long time ago. Not that constant examination of the science is not in order.
Until the Internet and its blogs and such came along the media that overwhelmingly voted and donated to a particular political regime more or less controlled us. The only reason any opposition ever won a seat was due entirely to frustration of those who hadn’t bought in, and that number will dwindle radically as the demographics are plainly changing.
A population that is functionally illiterate and doesn’t know or care that the Earth goes around the Sun is fully at the mercy of any scam artist that rises to the top of the heap of popularity.
is there climate change? Yes, four times a year, every year! Are the seasons becoming more severe, Yes. God controls the wind, the rain, the heat and the cold and he’s not very happy with those who turn their backs on Him. It has NOTHING to do with global warming and everything to do with judgment on America.
Do you in America not think this is nothing more than a smoke screen by your government?
Simply to take scrutiny away from much larger problems your government has.
We had a labor/greens government that used global warming as a smoke screen here in Australia as it implemented other policys that have destroyed our country.
Why is Obama suddenly ramping up his governments commitment to global warming now?
Just marketing. Or in other words propaganda.
Leigh says: March 20, 2014 at 5:04 am
Ans. Presidential term limits and impending loss of both houses of congress. The panic and “Alamo”-esque media orchestrations are evident and expected.
Good to see the White House concentrating on real problems like Climate Change. Problems like unemployment, trade imbalance, national debt, Russian threat to EU, the White Houses knows best. These other problems are not real problems. Climate Change is the real threat because climate has never changed before. For hundreds of millions of years the climate was stable and never changed. It is only in the past 50 years, after we started using coal that the climate started to change.
Why is Obama suddenly ramping up his governments commitment to global warming now?
=================
Because every other problem can be measured. So if he says he is going to solve unemployment, people can check on that. But Climate Change is the perfect problem for governments to tackle because you cannot measure the effects of policy until decades after the government is out of office. So, while the government typically fails at almost everything else it does, it can never fail at solving Climate Change, no matter what it does.
Forget all about it. They can’t even operate a single wind mill http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/20/veterans-affairs-wind-turbine-built-for-23-million-stands-dormant/