Do We Really Need a National Climate Service? 358
coondoggie writes "I suppose it's natural for Washington to try and wrap issues up in a tidy legislative package for bureaucratic purposes (or perhaps other things more nefarious). But one has to wonder if we really need another government-led group, especially when it comes to the climate and all the sometimes controversial information that entails.
But that's what is under way. Today the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on the need for a National Climate Service, that could meet the increased demand for climate information, the committee said.
The NCS would provide a single point of contact of information climate forecasts and support for planning and management decisions by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector."
The National Academies recommended this (Score:5, Informative)
This will undoubtedly induce all sorts of railing about both the government and climate, but this step was actually recommended by the National Academies of Science, and I'm happy that it's being seriously considered. The NAS issued in a report [nap.edu] that, distilled down, says that we're already paying for climate science, but the info generated by that work isn't reaching the people who need it most, like the ones that have to manage water supplies in the desert southwest. When those people do find the research, it's typically not structured in a way that's especially useful to them. (For a more elaborate summary of the report, see here [arstechnica.com] - full disclosure, i wrote that).
So, this is largely an attempt to take information we're already producing (the government has paid for climate research for a long time through NOAA and the NSF) and make it useful.
If you'd read the article - this *is* NOAA. (Score:5, Informative)
The NCS would fall under the auspices of NOAA but would utilize the expertise and resources of other federal agencies to meet the growing demand for climate services, the committee stated.
NOAA describes the NCS as being the nation's identified, accessible, official source of authoritative, regular, and timely climate information. That includes historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision support tools and early warning systems, and the development and delivery of valued climate services.
Which part of this is unclear? This is NOAA (who are good at what they do) getting access to even more "expertise and resources." Sounds cool.
Re:Why are those the only options? (Score:0, Informative)
Could your post not be modded down because it's horseshit?
Or is that not an option?
Well it'd have to be horseshit for that to be an option. So no, not an option.
But I fully expect that his 5: Insightful moderation will begin to evaporate as the left coast wakes up, has a few bong hits, stumbles down to Starbucks and gets some caffeine in it only to discover an infidel has been blaspheming against all the gospel.
Re:Weather is global (Score:5, Informative)
If AccuWeather and Rick Santorum had their way not only would we be paying for the NOAA/NWS to make those forcasts, but then we wouldn't be able to get that data from them without going through a pay-company like AccuWeather.
AccuWeather wants us to pay for it twice, just so we can pay them for work they didn't do.
[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuWeather [wikipedia.org] ]
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Because "climate" and "weather" are different things.
Re:How is hyperbole (Score:4, Informative)
1) actually food planet based biofuels (esp soy diesel) just got canned by Obama's EPA - failed some tests that disqualify it from the running for those new green biofuel subsidies. I live in Iowa, our farmers were howling - I told them to go rent space to wind farms ($2k-$5k/year per turbine)
2) I doubt the administration hates it.. find me cites [Yucca doesn't count, the site was actually found upon further analysis to be unsuitable for long term waste storage - has a semi-active fault line running right under it]
The problem with Nuclear energy in this country is that it has been demonized - Look at the media reaction to TMI
3) Prove it. If you mean "the companies will just pass on the cost" you MIGHT have an argument.
PS I'm hardly some rich elitist
My parents, combined, made less than $45k/year when I grew up... so I'm not exactly what you'd call "rich" (though I now make that singlehandedly.. 1 year out of college w/ a computer science degree)
Between my wife and I we have a house worth of college loans to pay back
4) As for Al Gore and MTBE, he never claimed to be infallible.
5) No. Shit. A Tank gets .5 MPG Diesel.
Re:Parent is definition of troll (Score:3, Informative)
And, for some reason, you think you can trust the government's? How quaint. [surfacestations.org]
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:5, Informative)
The NOAA and it's subsidiaries (which the NCS would be one) are one of the most effective government agencies ever created. Not only is it filled with competent scientists it's also filled with ones that know how to keep up with technology to disseminate information as efficiently as possible.
Re:Weather is global (Score:3, Informative)
Whoever -1 flamebaited me needs to read the wiki article. I was talking about something that is ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. Things ON THE PUBLIC RECORD are hardly flamebait.
Then they need to post an apology in this thread to undo their moderation.
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:3, Informative)
You know, there are whole states that are run "for the betterment of their people". In other words, altruistic states where decisions are not made on economic merit, but on the basis of "justice".
You're absolutely right that Halliburton is not a company that decides based on justice, it decides based on economic self-intrest.
And you're completely right that Greenpeace DOES decide actions based on (their idea of) justice (more realistically : on how "righteous" it makes them look to others. Therefore greenpeace is, first and foremost, a media and public relations organization. They do not produce things with the intention of buying land and turning it into a voluntary "sustainable community" : they demand laws to force others to do so). Economic self-intrest is at best a very minute factor in their decision making. Only rich people join greenpeace, people without any financial worries.
So let's look at some relatively large "justice based" organisations : ...
-> North Korea (stealing from the poor and giving to cronies)
-> Cuba
-> Iran (we are not to judge other religions, whose essence is other opinions of justice. That their ("allah's" if you're truly naive) opinion of justice includes stoning innocent women "must not be judged", that would be racist. I wonder if you "progressives" consider the stoned victims of muslim "justice" racists. Odds are they do not think very well of that "justice", of that religion)
-> Saudi Arabia (same goes, except with slightly less official prostitution (also called mut'a "marriage"))
-> China (stealing from the rich and giving to the politicians *cough* *ahem*, of course, I mean giving to the people)
-> Soviet Russia (same goes)
->
This guy said it best [youtube.com]
Greenpeace consists of individuals, who care, first and foremost, for themselves. There's nothing saintly or even remarkable about greenpeace members, they are perfectly human. And it shows :
Greenpeace opposes anything with co2 exhaust AND hates the one solution to the co2 problem that might actually work (today, not in 50 years) : nuclear power. They are also already decided : they oppose nuclear fusion, if and when it becomes available.
Also greenpeace ignores massive co2 exhaust where it is politically inconvenient : ever looked at a wind turbine ? Every last square millimeter you see is reprocessed oil. On the inside, tons of components are made with oil, and the remainder, the steel supports, are made by burning coal (that's how cast iron is still made, coal is just too cheap and convenient. Everywhere you mine iron you will find coal deposits on top of it, between it, ...)
I hope this post can help you understand : good intentions do not necessarily result in good results. In fact, some very, VERY bad results had very good intentions (like all communist states, most dictatorships, lots of genocides, ...)
Re:Yes we do. (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? The top hit for that quote is a website [geocraft.com] that doesn't cite its sources. Trying to track down the origins of that quote leads to OTHER websites that don't cite their sources either. (c.f. this one, from 2007 [worldwidewarning.net], this one, which looks suspiciously familiar, from 2005, [ff.org] and this one, which just links back to the first one. [environmentalism.com] You gotta do better than that.
Re:Yes we do. (Score:4, Informative)
your "Science" is wrong.
"The early part of the Carboniferous was mostly warm; in the later part of the Carboniferous, the climate cooled."
The carbon load in the atmosphere dropped due to significant coral reef activity over a great number of epicontinental sea area fixing that carbon into limestone.
try this graph:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg [scotese.com]
the Carboniferous started with average around 20C in the Devonian then dropped to 10C by the Early Permian
Re:Parent is definition of troll (Score:3, Informative)
read the entire thread, I've posted a number of pieces of information with source citations.
like the fact that the atmospheric carbon load is the highest it's been in 20myr and that it's growing at the fastest rate in the last .4 Ma. Oh how about the tidbit that the steady state carbon load in the atmosphere has increased 50% since the start of the industrial revolution.
The simple fact is you're flat wrong, the evidence is all around you: we could literally beat you over the head with a college-phsyics-textbook sized tome detailing the evidence and you still wouldn't believe it. Because you don't care about evidence, you only care about politics. /Al Gore is a hypocrite.
Re:We already have one (Score:2, Informative)
Charging for data is a touchy subject around here, though--the scientists, developers, customer service people, and management would all love to give away as much of our data as possible (and we give away a lot of it), but the money is always an issue.
Re:National Weather Service (Score:3, Informative)
What's wrong with the National Weather Service? Part of NOAA.
Let's be more practical- the NWS is analyzing a lot of radar data and such and running short range models while climate analysts run models of a very different nature that use hundreds of years of data. Since this is all in the same basket, suppose the same people who were looking for data just ran a 10,000 year everything model each time they needed a weather forecast (so we've got our oceanic currents, precipitation, nitrogen cycle, etc.)... it's not the same thing. You need a collection of people who are funded and supported to organize all these models that are coming from various academic and commercial entities.
Right now, these organizations are trying to share data internationally and fight the government for grant money to keep the research going(so the government already funds this) so they can reach some point of centralization- it's about more than glory. We here in Illinois are trying to figure out how shifting climate and weather patterns will affect our water and nitrogen cycle for crop growing... it's important because we're growing a large chunk of the world's corn and soy... and if you back out into the region, we're growing a large chunk of the world's food. The entire agricultural system here runs like a finely-tuned machine tweaked to follow the yearly weather and rain. When these things change, the side effects will reach the rest of the country. It becomes a national problem.
For this reason, I believe that national resources should be pooled for climate modeling and the centralization of climate data... if only to provide more iron to process data and more server space for everyone to store our data. Here at UIUC, the NCSA time we have to run these models is not cheap and not sufficient to provide the sort of results the government needs.
Furthermore, centralization of climate research would better allow research groups to specialize their models so one main organization might have the time, expertise, and funding to unify the results. The clock is really ticking on results, here. The world isn't going to burn up or have its oceans boil over or anything, but if we see crop growth effected by inconsistent and unpredictable weather patterns due to climate change, it's going to become a problem for our market and then the third world market, which eventually becomes geopolitical conflicts.
Short answer: yes, it is very much the federal government's problem and a keen example of where government centralization would be beneficial. Anyone who says that some other department can just "pick it up" has no idea how complex climate modeling is... you have to model EVERYTHING from the soil to the sky to the estimated economic growth of nations and regions and their carbon impact.
On standing up the NCS (Score:4, Informative)
NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm [noaa.gov]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration [wikipedia.org]
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf [noaa.gov]
Although many have suggested that the NWS would be the ideal home for this function, NWS is overly focused on operational meteorology in my opinion, and execution of the climate mission is divided between NESDIS, NWS, NOS and OAR.
NESDIS operates three environmental data centers which are effectively the archive for the climate mission, along with the large array data system.
NCDC http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html [noaa.gov]
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome [noaa.gov] ).
Other line offices in NOAA operate systems that are likewise focused on the climate mission, primarily in the NWS, NOS, and OAR.
Some have suggested it would be ideal to take a small part of the NWS, NOS, OAR, the data centers and CLASS, to stand up a new line office, The National Climate Service. This could be performed more as a reorganization of NOAA internally, without the bureaucratic trappings of another new line office, along with dual-hatting of a CIO and CFO from other line offices in NOAA
As an alternative, NOAA could use the matrix goal team structure in order to create the climate service. I believe such an approach would be ineffective, due to the lack of decision-making ability at those levels. NOAA, at the top, has an Executive Committee and an Executive Panel, that are crucial for determining budget priorities from NOAA's small budget. A National Climate Service, to be successful, must have representation at that level.