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."
Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously it's a good thing.
At least always better than letting Halliburton, Enron and Total decide what our future looks like.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the University System. Who has really lost their way. In a more perfect world the University's who are doing a lot of this research should be communicating with each other and as well with open, non-confrontational dialogs with other companies R&D. As well getting proper funding from these companies and the governments to work on/get better understanding of the problem.
However real life sets in and Universities need to focus on being grades 13,14,15 and 16 to meet the educational demands for jobs ou
How is hyperbole (Score:2, Troll)
insightful? Or are there just certain buzzwords that people are compelled to rate higher?
The future of our climate isn't being decided by corporations, it is being decided by an overly politicized system. Contrary laws and NIMBY laws are what are screwing us. I won't even try to list what is beyond our control outside our borders that may just undo anything we can try.
Look, they have pushed this line of thought for so long that they are locked in. They have to create a new office, which in turn can issu
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
most of the farmers do simply rotate soy and corn back and forth - so yeah, not very diversified. we also have soil that is prime for that type of farming.
The flatness of Iowa is greatly exaggerated. We're a gently rolling hills glacial terrain in most of the state except the Driftless Zone in NE corner of the state (NW IL, SW WI as well) which can have significant relief (600' vertical in just a mile or so) when compared to the rest of the Midwest.
and there has been a lot of work in the past decade to d
Re: (Score:2)
3. Cap and Trade . Backdoor tax on the poor and middle class without calling it that.
Wait, are you saying that because a certain carbon restriction policy hurts the poor, carbon shouldn't be restricted? Because it is possible for carbon policies to encourage everyone people to cut back on carbon without punishing the poor.
All you have to do is rebate to everyone (not just the poor) the revenues from auctioning permits, an amount equal to the additional cost of fuel due to C/T that you would pay if you earned 100+x% of the poverty level income.
So, if C/T imposes an additional cost of, say,
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is something terribly wrong with your reasoning: Halliburton, Enron and Total have only 1 objective: their bottom line. That's not true for greenpeace : they want to inspire people to leave this world in a better state than how they got it. The peoples need and the nations need are what define them; in case of Halliburton : their only thing that define them are their shareholders pocket.
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
a better state than how they got it
What if I don't agree with what greenpeace is shoving down my throat as 'a better state'?
One could argue that all Halliburton wants to do is leave the world in a better state... as defined by them- really the same goal as greenpeace, just different definitions of 'better'.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah, indeed different definitions : greenpeace's definition is altruistic. Halliburtons' is egoistic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Altruism... yeah, I'm sure thats greenpeace's only motive...
Even if altruism was their _only_ and _focused_ mission, there is a whole school of thought (I don't subscribe to it, but it exists, and is valid as any other) that contends altruism leads to suffering, and only hurts in the long run.
Re: (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 greenpe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
N-Korea, USSR, Cuba, ...
Those aren't really altruistic states. In fact, i consider them fascist states.
they demand laws to force others to do so
NO, they demand laws that force people to not harm others(which is in fact a fundamental premise of 'liberty', as opposed to 'libertarianism').
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they are a lobby group that promotes a particular cause, no different to NRA, ACLU or EFF. Greenpeace have not shot anyone but they have rammed a couple of whaling boats and had their own boat bombed and sunk by the French secret service. I for one thank them for their early efforts to stop atmospheric nuclear bomb tests and appreciate their efforts to keep the Japanese whaling fleet out of Australi
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
In the open market it's the consumers that decide what they need. Not the companies. In the case of Haliburton their consumers are, ironically, governments who buy weapons to kill people. Enron was an electricity company. Most electricity companies get monopoly privileges from governments. I don't remember the specific details regarding Enron's operations though so I'll leave it at that (I just recall that they were a utility company in California that was caught in a corruption scandal).
Everybody is
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism tries to externalize (and therefore ignore) all costs. Environmental impact is a cost everyone has been doing a great job of externalizing and taking is right into an ecological disaster in the process.
It's the government's job to make sure that those costs that can just be tossed off on everyone else get paid by the entity that is attempting to externalize them.
that's how capitalism works.
Capitalism is not laissez faire [aka Anarcho-Capitalism]
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is not laissez faire [aka Anarcho-Capitalism]
You mean the capitalism from the books i presume, and not the o,ne practised in the real world ?
Real Capitalism is IMPOSSIBLE. it needs : perfect information to all players.
Re: (Score:2)
actually it just needs roughly equal bargaining power between all parties involved. You're right "pure Capitalism" is impossible, so is "Pure socialism" (nothing like what people throw that term around at here in the United States)
anything "Pure " is impossible in the real world.
The best mix tends to be on the "Regulated Capitalism to Socialism" spectrum if you look at the healthiest economies on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
actually it just needs roughly equal bargaining power between all parties involved.
jup. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmental issues are a perfect example of government failing to do it's job.
We need to ask "what is the role of government?" Classic liberals felt that the only role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. All rights are property rights (I can elaborate on that if you'd like me to but I'll skip it for brevity).
During the industrial revolution many companies were sued by others who felt that air pollution was a violation of their property rights (not only their land and air but their lungs - ie: bodies - as well). Judges ruled basically that "well, we know these are clear violations but we're going to look the other way because we don't want to hinder economic development" (!!!)
Now, you can blame the industrialists all you want. But if government were doing it's one, single job then we wouldn't have air pollution. The only way a company can survive is to produce goods and services that benefit the lives of others. When people feel that their rights are being violated and the means they've chosen to enforce those rights is not functioning then you get a case of capitalism deteriorating and externalizing costs ... by using the very institution designed for the opposite purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes because they're too busy believing that it's a "vast liberal conspiracy" since their corporate-fellating information sources feed them that, and since climate science is so complex that things that to a layman seem like counter-evidence actually are evidence.
Like Antarctica getting more snow a year is actually a sign of a warming climate in Antarctica.
Henry Wallace was right. The American fascist does work by polluting the streams of information.
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that is false. It is NOT about their shareholder's pocket. If so, then they (and all American corps) would be thinking LONG-TERM. Far too many actions are short-term. They are looking only at their OWN pockets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Haliburton,Exxon... have TRILLIONS of $ to decide what are future looks like.
2) They will determine that future with the sole intention of immediate gratification of increased (3)profit.
As much as you don't like Greenpeace et all, they do not have the money nor the intentions to contend with these companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is definition of troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument you make is quite dishonest. By conflating activist groups with government leaders, you try to pretend the GP said something that he did not. His point was that history shows that we cannot trust corporate interests to be honest participants in a debate on climate. We cannot trust their data, we cannot trust their motives. They create phony "think tanks" with the sole purpose of obfuscation.
Yes, we need a National Climate Service.
You know what? I trust a democratic (small "D") system. If a multinational corporation pollutes a river, causing cancer deaths and birth defects, we can't vote out the corporate officers and their deep pockets protects them from legal recourse (see: A Civil Action). If I hate the way the government's going, guess what? There's an election coming up. There's always an election coming up. And with the exception of a group Slave States that made a very bad decision in the 1860's, power has transferred peacefully in this system.
You know what's NOT in our Constitution? Capitalism. It's not there, I looked. Not by name, and not by inference. Because capitalism is not the same as "free enterprise" even though people mistakenly think they are synonymous.
But that's a discussion for another day and there are goldfinches on the tree outside my window and my dog wants a walk.
But bluestrat, that was just a shitty troll. Ineffective, wrong-headed and stupid. Plus, you wrapped it all in a troll package with your "I bet I'm gonna get modded down" disclaimer, which is a sure sign that you intended your post to be a troll.
You've got a bit to learn, no matter how long you've been here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And, for some reason, you think you can trust the government's? How quaint. [surfacestations.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism isn't in the 10th ammendment.
The constitution doesn't specifically enable or prohibit any single economic system.
Re: (Score:2)
This reply is meant for the GP, but I put it here because LordKazan says the same in an elegant manner.
XxtraLarGe, here's the entirety of the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
Which means congress and state legislatures can do pretty much anything that's not prohibited by the preceding amendments.
Some libertarians believe this means that the Constitution does not g
Re: (Score:2)
That was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
It is fortunate that bluestrat has a kind and eloquent mentor such as yourself to help them learn the errors of their way.
That was my point.
My lawn.
Off it you will get.
.
Now, for all those calling *my* post a troll...what exactly was the OPs' post I replied to?
Insightful? Interesting?
Please. ::facepalm::
The whole "climate change/global warming/P.C. term du jour" can be summed up quite succinctly with two words:
Insufficient Data.
There simply is not enough data or the computing pow
Re: (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-tex
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are trolling. How about you produce some real scientific evidence to support your apparent position that either "global warming doesn't exist" or that "humans didn't cause it"
keep in mind the steady-state atmospheric carbon load has increased by 50% since the start of the industrial revolution and at the fastest growth rate in the last .5 Ma and possibly (probably?) longer. [the last chart I saw and can clearly remember only went back to .5 Ma]
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to myself: .5 Ma chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png [wikimedia.org]
(wiki) "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 Myr" (citing: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm [grida.no] )
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I always find Americans talking about climate change hilarious.
In my country we are taught the ins and outs of climate change in science lessons. This way you learn the theory behind it in the same way and with the same scepticism that you learn to study all scientific theories. Since this has been this way for decades even people in their 30's like myself gained some exposure to climate change ideas in this way.
This is very important since if you just relied on soundbites like "Global Warming" you can dismiss climate change as not happening as your part of the world just had unusually cold weather. I have lost track of home many times I have heard this argument. Unfortunately it is based on an over simplification of climate change: that the temperature is getting hotter everywhere. The truth is the the average global temperature is going up, but that might result in your neck of the woods getting colder.
Like it or not, understanding Climate Change involves understanding some science. In particular it involves an amount of Atmospheric Physics, not one of the friendliest topics to the layman. So with this in mind you can either study the subject for years (or maybe decades) and figure out what is going on or get someone else to study it for you.
If Greenpeace commission an independent study that they have no editorial control over the Oil companies listed above are still going to dismiss it as propaganda if it suggests things like using less of their products. If the Oil companies commission a study that they have no editorial control over people in the Greenpeace camp still will not believe that they had no editorial control.
The idea behind this latest government sponsored group being set up is simple: Try and get a group to come out with some findings that are not immediately rubbished by the side that the disagree with.
This approach has worked in Europe but unfortunately as the studies were all done abroad they are still treated with scepticism in the US. Hopefully this will result in a Government funded, truly impartial report that can be used is impartial evidence in public debate about climate change in the US.
The problem is that the Oil companies have seen the scientific evidence from a previous impartial studies like this and have come to the conclusion that they would rather this report does not come out until they can realign their core business away from Oil. They will therefore mobilise their considerable influence on Capitol Hill in order to keep government out of research into Climate Change.
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because we know that Greenpeace, PETA, Nancy Pelosi, the DailyKOS/MoveOn crowd, George Soros, Al Gore, and Harry Reid will make reasoned, informed decisions balancing the peoples' and the nations' needs with the demands of the environmental whack-jobs.
Nope, they'd be pretty much as bad as leaving it yo the energy companies. Which is why the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is looking at a National Climate Service rather than leaving it to the partisan groups you mentioned. Whether they'll do a good job or not might be an interesting debate, but saying that one group of people not getting the job would make as bad a job of it as another group of people not getting the job is simply irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because we know that Greenpeace, PETA, Nancy Pelosi, the DailyKOS/MoveOn crowd, George Soros, Al Gore, and Harry Reid will make reasoned, informed decisions
I didn't know all these people worked for the US government...
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are some examples of the lies and lobbying I am talking about, Senator Inhofe [realclimate.org] who's list of desenting scientists, has as much cedibility as the dicovery institute list of scientists that supposedly reject evolution [discovery.org] but that has not stopped a large number of slashdotter's from waving it around like a magic wand that somehow makes facts dissapear. Then there is the "Heartland institute" run by one Fred Singer [wikipedia.org] who was also prominent in the tabacco industry's anti-science propoganda. Another site that has raised it's ugly head and that can also be related to the anti-science lobby of the tabacco companies is called IceCap [icecap.us], this site specializes in conflating various regions of ice all over the planet and is incapable of ditingushing the North pole from the south pole. It is run by a guy who is on the payroll at the "Science and Public Policy Institute", who are in turn funded by the "Frontiers of Freedom" which is the lobbting brain fart of yet another (ex) US senator [wikipedia.org]. Wallop and Singer are mates from the tabacco industries anti-science cmapaign, the major contributors to the Frontiers of Freedom include Philip Morris and ExxonMobil.
Yep, these anti-science and anti-environment politicians/CEO's have nothing but good intentions, they publish their propoganda to protect you from "environmental whack jobs" and the scientific community who make ludicrous claims such as smoking causes cancer or that a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. They have somehow convinced a large chunk of the US that it's not them who are running scams and lying it's the scientific community under the direction of Al Gore who are the liars and scammers.
"Get real."
How about you get real, pull your head out of the sand and drop the alarmist hyperbole, nobody is putting greenpeace in charge of anything but there is a problem and the anti-enviroment/anti-science rhetoric/popoganda coming from the US over the last decade is what has perverted any attempt at a real solution.
"(Yeah, I know. This will almost certainly get modded down to oblivion by KOSdot mods, probably modded "-1 Troll" but screw it. I've got the karma to burn.)"
I have no idea who KOSdot are and I'm not a fan of greenpeace but I agree that your misguided alarmisim should be moderated into oblivion.
Re:Obviously it's a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't you be moving to Somalia? I hear there's no pesky government or taxes getting in the way of free enterprise there.
Doesn't that sound just as retarded as your statement?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's the problem with extremists. They are all completely full of shit (and you can't even compost it). The problem with stupid people is they believe what extremists have to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Gore isn't really an extremist, just a hypocrite.
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.
Yea, why the fuck not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile (Score:2, Interesting)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana"
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't the people living near the volcano be the ones to pay for monitoring the volcano? This is somewhat similar to the fact that New Orleans should probably be the one the pay for any measures they take to protect themselves from hurricanes.
Jindal's an idiot, but it doesn't change the fact that people need to assume some responsibility for themselves and their local community instead of always expecting the Federal government to take care of all of their problems. If they can't bother to pay for some d
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how yet another department is needed to fill in the gaps that NOAA and the National Weather Service doesn't provide. Seems easier and much cheaper to simply steer our existing resources into this increased scope and give them additional funding if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
that's what this does - the NCS would be another NOAA department, just like the NWS
Re: (Score:2)
People are going to live where they can get cheap land (for instance, near volcanos and mudslide zones). Then they are going to clamor for goverment assistance to protect themselves from the dangers they should have known about when they built their houses. That is human nature.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently, Bush wasn't even very good at getting rid of programs!
Re: (Score:2)
How is that post a troll? The more local something is the better chance you have at accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
36% of the GDP? rotfl.
citation, right now.
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually easier than I thought
Re: (Score:2)
Try a reliable source.
You know why I say that? your number is off by a magnitude of 10 when compared to all other numbers I've seen.
Re:Yea, why the fuck not? (Score:4, Funny)
You cant expect numbers to agree with him. That's just unfair, everybody knows reality has a liberal bias!
Re: (Score:2)
Only because conservatives live in a fantasy world. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Actually 36% might be misleading, since I meant Federal spending, but I had already slapped submit when I realized that. :-/
36% is a correct figure, but it takes into consideration the overall government burden: Federal, State and local levels.
The Federal government alone spent 21% of GDP in 2008. Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [centeronbudget.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh.. forgot to compensate for the
A) huge war spending
B) huge try-to-keep-our-economy-from-imploding spending.
yeah.
We mostly need to work on getting a better return per tax dollar. If we had anything near the return rates of some of our european friends we're really be high on the hog.
unfortunately a lot of that is wasted on two CRAPPY money sinks:
1) Military spending [which is massively wasteful... i'm not against military spending.. just wasteful military spending]
2) Social Security. I'm a democrat, but
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a crackpot libertarian, but I certainly agree with both of your suggestions.
Re:Yea, why the fuck not? (Score:4, Insightful)
which every economist that doesn't have their head so far up their arse they can see sunlight would say you're wrong about.
At the beginning of the depression government intervention did worsen it, because of wrong-headed libertarian/laissez-faire policies combined with economists still stuck on mercantilism. But then along came economists who knew what they were doing and said "the government needs to inject money into the system. Now." and the government did that and things got better. After the great depression we passed numerous banking regulations and other anti-predatory-corporation regulations and everything was fine and Dandy - the boom/bust cycle even stopped and we stayed on a generally upward trend continuously.
until President Raygun [intentional] with the help of congress in the 80s started pulling strings out of those regulations: almost instantly the S&L crisis hits.. then we started back into the boom/bust cycle. then even more regulations were pulled out by the right-wing-dlc-democrat clinton along with the republican congress in 1998 then a great many more under bush 2000-2006 along with other various bad fiscal policies [lets cut the already unreasonably low* taxes of the rich thereby further subsiziding their excess] and WHAAAM massive stock market crash along with a massive banking shock: just like the crash of 1929.
[*
Laffer Curve describes the "maximum utilization" point for tax rates, above that and the tax rate does harm, below that and the tax rate isn't fully utilizing the tax base. Lowest estimate of that t* in the US is 50%, highest 80%. Top flight marginal tax rate for the rich under clinton 36%, under bush tax cuts, 33%. CBO places us clearly on the left side of the curve where tax cuts as a means of economic stimulus are virtually a waste of time. Virtually because cutting them for the bottom wage earners is always effective stimulous, cutting them for the top tier wealthy individuals is ONLY effective when you're on the right side of the Laffer curve]
Re:Yea, why the fuck not? (Score:4, Insightful)
no, of course not (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, the real question is whether or not there's even any climate change going on in the first place! But if we concede the point that it might be happening, is it man-made? Because if it's natural instead of man-made, that changes everything, right? A 10 degree change in average temp may see the polar caps melt and seas rise by 200 feet but if this was going to happen anyway it's no longer a problem, right? But I still say the jury's out on this one. Just like with the addictiveness of nicotine. There's been no conclusive scientific evidence from scientists paid by the tobacco industry to show that there's any addictiveness with nicotine. Oh, and that prison torture in Iraq? Did you not listen to the press conference? Bad apples in the lowest ranks of the military, nothing more.
I really wish people would pay more attention to the official story. A lot of time and money has been put into getting it down pat and it's incredibly disrespectful to then go and listen to other sources.
Re:no, of course not (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, the real question is whether or not there's even any climate change going on in the first place! But if we concede the point that it might be happening, is it man-made? Because if it's natural instead of man-made, that changes everything, right?
No, it doesn't. It would still flood a lot of major cities in the world, disrupt crops and change weather patterns. I know you were being satirical, but this point seems to be missing a lot on the debates. Earth doesn't care if we're heating her skin or not, she'll just be hot for a while, shed the parasites and try again. If we as a race want to survive, we'd better do something about that shedding. If anything, if it turns out we're NOT doing it, we're in for a much harder job of fixing it than if it's us...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
you forgot to close your tag. I'll do it for you : </sarcasm> or </cynical>. Do I hear whooshing sounds ?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't digg, We assume people have the brains to see out /s tags around here, and if they don't we often get modded insightful
Re: (Score:2)
Since the start of the industrial revolution the steady state carbon dioxide load in the atmosphere has gone up 50% in ppm and total tonnage.
fastest growth rate in the last half a million years on this planet, maybe longer. [last graph I saw only went to .5 Ma]
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.
What about NOAA? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Big government entity ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Depending on the mandate of this new organization, what is wrong with organizing and have a focused approach on a large global issue ?"
You just answered your own question by prefacing that with "depending on the organization's mandate".
When an individual or organization needs to employ it's own resources to undertake any kind of productive endeavor (whether it's research or producing a product) it's success is measured by the contributions that it makes to individuals. When an organization uses other peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Weather is global (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If weather services were privatized, would it be legal to share the forecast with your colleagues?
We have private news services, yet the news seems to be available to everybody.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
We already have one (Score:2, Interesting)
National Weather Service (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with the National Weather Service? Part of NOAA.
Re: (Score:2)
If we just use that we wouldn't be expanding government, and remember Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution : 'To have the power and responsibility to grow government at any opportunity'
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Article I Section 8 bullet point this comes from is: "To create politically-driven departments alongside existing scientific-driven departments"
Re: (Score:3)
Because weather is not at all the same thing as climate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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
Kind of like the ... (Score:2)
Kind of like the War Department that morphed into the Defense Department when there wasn't a war anymore. But look how much we've benefited from a pervasive and powerful military industrial complex!
At least the military threat to our country was OCCASIONALLY not contrived...
yeah, we do (Score:2)
can't kill what you can't pin down (Score:2)
Does the military want it ? (Score:2, Troll)
Is it necessary to defend the united states? No?
Then why is it the federal government's job?
Weather forecasting has its roots in military strategy. To the extent that climate forecasting might keep the country safe -- safe from real threats -- I'd support it being a job of the federal government.
I wish people would give up the idea that there is some dispassionate public interest that should be accorded to "scientists", while people holding the same education doing the same work that _dont_ milk from the
Another agency? (Score:2)
Why not just convert the National Weather Service or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Way to go. We already have a national weather service [noaa.gov]. Why would you encourage the government to create yet another redundant service.
I thought tracking weather involved tracking the history of weather, which would lead me to believe that it would take a small investment into the national weather service to create a climate forcasting/monitoring service. Oh wait, NOAA's NWS already tracks climate.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Because "climate" and "weather" are different things.
Re:Yes we do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. You're full of hate. The sad part is, I don't think you're trolling - I think you actually believe that stuff.
You "highly doubt" that man-made carbon output is killing this planet? Take a look at this chart: List of Countries Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions [wikipedia.org]
After you look at it, tell me that, for the US alone, 20.4 metric tons of CO2 times 300,000,000 people, isn't having an effect.
Or how about this chart? Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita [wikipedia.org] See how much of an impact deforestation is having?
These are real numbers. All you have is your pseudo-Ayn Randian Libertarian bullshit. We all went through that phase, and once we realized that it had serious flaws, we relegated it to "interesting, but not viable". The reaction to global warming is regulating our lives because so far we've been incapable of doing it ourselves. Capitalism is so concerned with the short-term wealth of its shareholders that it has failed to see the long-term implications of its actions. Burn another rainforest? Bah! We don't live there. Another Alaskan Oil Field? We'll die rich because of it, and screw the rest of ya.
Grow up and look around you. We're doing this. You're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not unprecedented, and that in fact there is plenty of evidence for much higher levels, while simultaenously the earth being cooler.
Queue up the green folks who want to stress how long a
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG.
Methane is the 3rd greenhouse gas, after water vapor and CO2.
We falsely consider CO2 as being the 1st greenhouse gas while it only is the 1st *anthropogenic* greenhouse gas.
Still, you're right when saying that going veggie is a good solution to reduce our CH4 emissions : I tried it, but I just love good meat, so I just