A Leading Climate Agency May Lose Its Climate Focus
By John Schwartz
The Trump administration appears to be planning to shift the mission of one of the most important federal science agencies that works on climate change — away from climate change.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce, operates a constellation of earth-observing satellites. Because of its work on climate science data collection and analysis, it has become one of the most important American agencies for making sense of the warming planet. But that focus may shift, according to a slide presentation at a Department of Commerce meeting by Tim Gallaudet, the acting head of the agency.
In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”
The presentation also included a new emphasis: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
Full story here
While this no doubt has climate warriors in a tizzy, who’ll likely be screaming and protesting soon, I’ll have to agree and say that a total of removal of climate from the NOAA mission is probably not a good idea.
Limiting the scope of the agency to data collection and short-term climate forecasting (such as seasonal outlooks done regularly by CPC) would probably be a better strategy. Will still need data collection, and we still need these short term climate forecasts for a wide variety of interests.
Limiting NOAA’s proselytizing about gloom and doom and tinkering with climate data such as Karl et al did in 2015 to remove “the pause” would be a better approach in my view.
If the Trump administration really wants to limit the gloom and doom, getting rid of NASA GISS GISTEMP climate division and the feckless Gavin Schmidt would be the best approach. The agency was formed to study planetary situations for NASA missions, not to study the climate of Earth. It’s a redundant agency, using NOAA’s climate data and then bollixing it to fit their viewpoint. Further, Schmidt has shown time and again that he’s lost the principles of what science really should be about, and has become more of an advocate than a scientist, much like his predecessor James Hansen, who would regularly get himself arrested at protests.
Eliminate NASA GISTEMP, for the good of America. Make Climate Great Again!
h/t to Eric Worral
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One only needs to look at NOAA’s tweets on twitter to see its riddled with advocacy, and claims based on no science, like Antarctic melt they imply is caused by CO2, and dramatised as well
NASA climate also blocked me when I argued that their Muir glacier claims re CO2 causing the melt, are demonstrably false, and intentionally so by not mentioning when the glacier actually started retreating, they intentionally give the impression CO2 is causing it to melt.
NOAA has lost all sight of its objective concerning climate, I don’t speak of all other endeavors at NOAA. It’s the climate activism at NOAA that is a real problem, and there is no way whatsoever that this activism is not tainting their pronouncements, press releases and interpretation of data, and adjustments of data.
NOAA re climate, are no longer fit for purpose
There is a massive problem with all of these agencies, and that is, they have been recruiting believers and rent seekers for well over a decade and it has gutted these agencies’ objectivity, especially in leadership, which has had a chilling effect on those who work at these agencies who have a more objective position.
“ for well over a decade ”
Al Gore became V.P. in Jan. 1993. You can start the counter there. 25 years?
It almost seems that the NY Times includes a “Conflicts of Interest” statement for the author at the end of the article :
“John Schwartz is part of the climate team.”
It’s about time the Trump admin. gets on with eliminating this duplication of effort, and I too would much rather have NOAA perform this function. They’ve done a good job of it as a rule.
That it’s taken this long to get on this is a sign that Trump really doesn’t care much about climate. He needs to put a person in charge that sees this mission as one of science and not one of politics
Short-term climate forecasting? Isn’t that the long-term weather forecast?
I think, that this new position is very funny.
Seems like Anthony not much acceptance from of the drop of “climate” term.
Can’t blame him, but when it comes to the addressing the issue through the term of “atmosphere” the implication of “change” has no any actual value in the matter as per the term “atmospherical change” as that will be just a termilogical dud, unless considered as in the context only of AGW-ACC.
There can not be an Atmospherical change considered unless AGW-ACC real, which means proof of such as atmospherical change is required, where the glob’s or earth’s or world’s warming, and all these other things, like “Hiroshimas into the oceans” or any else where but not within surfice to atmosphere happening does not matter or have any value.
Atmospherical variation does not mean atmospherical change, by some default.
The problem with “climate” is the “climate change”.
Technically “climate change” as per terminology in it’s proper meaning means
AGW-ACC, and only colloquially means climate variation, where variation not same or equal to change.
Climate change in proper terminology means a variation changing to a
new one, a variation in a given equilibrium moves to a new other variation in a new given equilibrium, aka AGW-ACC one, which can be forced to be accepted under this cook up terms of glob’s or earth’s or world’s warming terms.
No so much chance when considering this all under the term of “atmosphere”
As some one else has said, the “climate” has become a loaded word
and loaded term….but this so only because of the “change”
makes it so…
Sorry if this not so clear or maybe even confusing.
Also please do forgive my grammar and writing errors, first time trying such a
long comment from my phone
cheers
I’d rather that NASA and GISS got out of the climate change business than NOAA, but if Gavin Schmidt assisted in writing the EPA endangerment finding on CO2, perhaps he was owed some favors by the entrenched federal (teat suckling) bureaucracy. Don’t get me wrong, getting rid of Trenberth and his ilk at NCAR would be fine with me. In fact, I’d like a blanket policy of NO VIRTUAL CLIMATE MODELING by the US Government for the next 50 years, or until weather models can accurately predict the weather one full year in advance. Such a policy would pretty much put both NOAA and GISS climate change Chicken Littles out of business. We tax payers would save money, we wouldn’t get propagandized with our own tax money, our kids could sleep at night without worrying… win, win win. Except, what about the Department of Education and it’s propensity to promote climate change alarmism and political activism to primary school children: how is this a benefit the American public, exactly? The swamp needs LOTS of draining, using giant bulldozers and trucks and hydraulic buckets, not spoons. Remove the Dept. of Education, too. Betsy DeVos won’t mind.
Heartily agree on shutting down the criminal conspiracy at GISS. If its unindicted co-conspirators can’t be fired, then send them all to the North and South Poles to collect climatic data. They’ll soon look other, one hopes more honest work closer to NYC.
Of course, they are nervous and protective of NOAA in the role of supporting climate activism. But it is high time to unbundle the scientist/activist combo. The revised focus on science is to be applauded, not lamented. The proposed mission is consistent with the need to secure society and the economy through adapting to natural events, whatever the causes.
The mission of NOAA has been:
To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts;
To share that knowledge and information with others; and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
In his presentation, Rear Admiral Gallaudet suggested the mission statement would change to:
To observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions;
To share that knowledge and information with others; and
To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.
And this is part of a larger effort to rationalize federal government and defund programs of low value.
Background is here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/noaa-climate-intrigue/
Thanks for the link. Good information.
I don’ say this lightly…NOAA and it’s relationship with the data it collects is unalterably corrupt. Collect the data and distribute it in a clear, unbiased fashion, or shut ‘er down. I paid for that data!
Anthony:
USA Today reports that the NOAA is NOT going to drop climate change from its mission….
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/06/25/noaa-wont-drop-climate-and-conservation-its-mission-agency-says/731304002/.
“…The United States’ top weather, climate and ocean science agency – NOAA – will not drop “climate” from its mission statement nor will it de-emphasize research into climate change and resource conservation, the agency said Monday.
This follows a report Sunday from a science advocacy group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, that said the acting head of NOAA, Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, proposed a new mission statement for the agency — one the Union said would “undermine the agency’s vital work on behalf of the American people.”…’.
USA Today reports that the claim came from the Union of Concerned Scientists which may explain why the claim was apparently untrue from the looks of it. I am usually suspicious of anything coming from UCS based on their past claims and their alarmist position on climate change.
The environmental activist NGOs seem to be so obsessed with the climate alarmist narrative, they go into immediate panic mode at the first hint of anything that might threaten it. They would appear to be very heavily invested it. Not a smart thing IMHO if and when it dies out someday….
I hate articles like that. Not the WUWT post; the underlying source. No link to the actual slides, or any specifics about the meeting. So we don’t know what this really was. Budget discussion? Planning discussion? Brainstorming? I tried to find said slides but as far as I know they are not on line. Leaves the “journalists” to say whatever they want without regard to context.
There are hundreds of PAID individuals who spend all their time amending Wikipedia items to label any scientist who doesn’t avidly promote their AGW fraud as a climate denier or worse. The truth is being destroyed, freedom to discuss science is being made impossible. Who is paying these full-time destroyers of free speech and the truth? Bet you much comes from taxpayers funding pseudo-scientific outfits all over the world.
and then bollixing it to fit their viewpoint. Further, Schmidt has shown time and again that he’s lost the principles of what science really should be about,
Bolloxing.
Only the lukewarmers and the warminsters will miss NOAA climate hate, and Schmidt for brains.
The ones that need co2 as bogey-man, because they have spent years pushing the none existant RGE hypothesis.
It’s a living as long as long as they can push it.
Where the coldest environment on earth radiates the hottest environments warmer still.
As the philosopher Jagger nearly said,
Those who can, do? As far as I’m aware, the current number still equals zero.
The UK Met Office dialled back their short term climate forecasts because they realised that it was kinda hard to get right enough often enough to be useful, and that the British public were laughing at them because of their talk of a Mediterranean climate, with increased frequency barbecue summers, that seems likely to arrive at the same time as commercial fusion. (I’m hoping for all of them).
I do not know a lot about NASA in detail, but their position on climate change clearly mirrors the green lie: the science is settled. My impression is that NASA’s research and the research of many other agencies is dominated by “What if” studies. For climate change, analyses of future threats assume catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a given when the threats are only hypothetical.
The adverse consequences of a warming earth are no greater than the adverse consequences of a cooling earth. Policies appropriate for the warming case would be diametrically opposite to those appropriate for the cooling case, e.g., in the high case, CO2 might be reduced in the atmosphere to lower temperatures; in the low case, ice sheets might be covered with carbon black to accelerate melting and increase temperatures. Under these realities, promulgating environmental regulations with too little information could exacerbate a threat instead of reducing it. The likely damage from acting on the wrong premise, a warming or a cooling planet, nullifies arguments for either action until the science is right.
Until science narrows the estimated long-term temperature range such that mitigation measures would be appropriate for the entire range, the best choice would be to take no actions. A good way to prioritize government funding might be to cancel all hypothetical “What if” projects in all agencies.
OK, it’s not the Boy Scouts, but “Be Prepared” seems the adequate motto for each of these scenarios. So unbiased research in all direction seems best.
Thesis – antithesis – synthesis.
Then you might be interested to learn, if you haven’t heard already, the military has started actively preparing for “cold weather operations”.
Interesting. Seems as if they know more than the average citizen should?
“To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
Aha! It’s terrorists who are causing climate change! And the trade war. And an increasing budget deficit. Better get NOAA on that, maybe they can figure out a way to aim lightning strikes at illegal immigrants.
Kristi, there was a time when you at least attempted to appear intelligent.
I see that you have completely given up the pretense.
“In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.””
Pardon me if I quoted too much, but I feel is an absolutely appropriate move. After all. this the National OCEANIC and ATMOSPHERIC Administration we are talking about, not the National Administration on Climate Change, as more recently it might have been called. This move simply returns the focus of NOAA back to their originally chartered mission. This ends a duplication of dubious effort between government agencies and an academia paid to do the same research. If at any time NOAA had done anything other than shout hurrahs for questionable research coming out of academia, and “adjusting” their data to suit the academics, there might be some use for NOAA as a climate “watch dog”, but in this case, the watch dog has just sat idly by watching them cart off the goods when it was not actually helping them with the process.
“To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.” Yes, excellent first step, clearly delineate the exact mission of the agency. Next step? Start firing all the “employees” who have been and are pushing a political agenda instead of actually doing the jobs they draw substantial salaries and benefits packages for. Long past time to gut the leftists political agitators that have infiltrated every level of our government. The climate is just fine, nothing we do is causing it to change and nothing we can do will stop it from changing. Get NOAA and all other USG agencies BACK to their actually duties, serving the citizens of the United States.
“To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
I think this clause is pretty much attached to the mission statement of every agency in government, and has been for years. Relax, the government is NOT taking over… well, any more or less than they have been in the past
I will not relax. I will continue to support anyone who is actively stripping government agencies of their over reach capabilities, and I will continue to support anyone who is reducing the number of parasites sucking the blood of Americans b y “working” for USG.
Weather analysis & prediction is fine — we should continue improving it. But there’s no substantive reality to “climate” — it’s an average, a mathematical abstraction. All there ever is, is real-time weather. Stop spending a penny on the study of mathematical abstractions (and the parade of stupid abstractions from THOSE abstractions like what will happen to “X” when “Y” happens) beyond what the weather-models can reliably predict.
Preparing for future weather is fine — prior events/history will guide the preparations.
Anthony– Can you please explain “short term climate forecasting”? Are we still defining “climate” as 30-year average of local and regional weather? We have seasonal weather, which may change over the short term. NOAA studies and predictions of weather changes can be useful. It has yet to be shown that predictions of “climate change” are either possible or useful. Studies of past climate changes may be interesting, but have not proven to be predictive.
“Probably a good idea”? ‘Probably’?
Global Warming is a Gigantic Fraud
Global Warming is a gigantic fraud and has been proven false. The Global Warming alarmists are now renaming their crusade the Climate Change theory. The reason there has been no temperature increase in 18 years. As a matter of fact, that the global temperatures have been falling the last three years. This is because the sun is going into a long term cool down called the Grand Solar Minimum. It will bring colder longer lasting winters for the next 30 years.
The CO2 scam has been busted, CO2 is plant food and necessary for all life on earth. In the Dinosaur Era CO2 was at ten times the current levels. Plant and animals thrived with temperatures in the same range as today.
The Global Warming alarmists are raking in billions of dollars in government grants that their friends in NOAA, NASA and NSF hand over to them. This is a gigantic fraud that our own government is participating and promoting for their political/socialist agendas.
Get your own information from http://www.ADAPT2030.com, http://www.GrandSolarMinimum.com, and http://www.OppenheimerRanchProject.com. Best books John Casey’s Dark Winter and The Cold Sun and a good video to review is Climate Fraud – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ps5VhSHzyo.
Grand Solar Minimum effect on food supply.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI-Am0t4qQaP_Do9FwMWw3Q.