Gov't Proposes "National Climate Service" For the US 599
Standing Bear writes "NPR reports that 140 years after the creation of the National Weather Service, the US government is proposing the creation of a similar service that will provide long-term projections of how climate will change. 'We are actually getting millions of requests a year already about: How should coastal cities plan for sea-level rise? How should various other agencies in the federal government or in state governments make plans for everything from roads to managing water supplies?' says NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. 'And a lot of that is going to be changing as the climate changes.' Under the plan, the new NOAA Climate Service would incorporate some of the agency's existing laboratories and research programs, including the National Climatic Data Center, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the National Weather Service's Historical Climate Network. Meanwhile, as plans for the new climate service shape up, NOAA launched a new Web site, climate.gov, designed to provide access to a wide range of climate information."
Long predictions (Score:2, Interesting)
I can give one long term prediction. The government will not be able to use "climate change" as an excuse for a orgy of tax rises.
I actually think this is a good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we've moved past the emails. (Score:3, Interesting)
The dendro-proxies are kaput too. We're onto making fun of himalayan glaciers and the Day After Tomorrow warnings now. Next up: satellite thermal measurement calibration to .01 degree C at a range of 2,000 kilometers, and the incredible disappearing Midieval Warm Period [wikipedia.org].
If the 1800's continue to cool at the current rate, it will not be long before we're thankful of the role of AGW in staving off the impending ice age of 1940.
Re:When... (Score:1, Interesting)
Which get rich scheme are you talking about? Is that where McIntyre, McKitrick, Christy, Douglas, Spencer, Miloy, Monckton, Ball, Pimer get paid by Western Fuels Association, Edison Electric Institute, ExxonMobil, Gabriel Resources, Ltd. and host of others to LIE about something they know nothing about. Kinda like Monckton claiming to be a member of the British House of Lords, when he is not or maybe like Ball who claims to have the first PhD in climatology from Canadian University even though his thesis was about migratory birds and there were more than a dozen climatology PhD degree holders before him. Maybe you Christy and Douglas who regularly publish papers in scientific journals confirming that global warming is real and worse than what the IPCC report describes, testify under oath that global warming is real and dangerous yet accept money from ExxonMobil for speaking tours where they deny global warming is occurring. Is that the get rich quick schemes you are talking about? Do you mean Watts and Coleman who get paid tens of thousands of dollars for speaking tours where they talk about climatology and meteorology even though they never have had a single course and meteorology and their only knowledge is from reading a forecast on the television and acting stupid on air for ratings? You surely don't mean the researcher you makes less per year than Watts gets for a 1 hour speech?
Re:When... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a scientist (Score:2, Interesting)
But these people are: http://www.realclimate.net/ [realclimate.net]
All this rhetoric and allegory is laughable.
Re:Premature (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly will moving to renewable energy, building homes/businesses that are more energy efficient and better insulated, reducing the carbon output of of major industries and moving toward more sustainable resource use "ruin" the civilisation?
The civilization is already living on a narrow margin. Most of the people on the planet are poor; some are very poor (like in most of Africa.) Imagine that they will be forbidden to burn wood, and instead need to install solar heaters - that would kill whole countries (where they need heating or cooling.) In developed world higher taxes on businesses will result in fewer businesses still operating, rampant unemployment, crime and proliferation of ghettos. Also many of modern "green" initiatives are poorly thought of, and are inefficient (like biofuels.)
Their profits will likely go down, but there's nothing to stop them investing in new tech
You say it as if those companies are just lazy to invent "new tech." Fact is, we aren't aware of better energy source than oil. Fusion is, of course, much better - but the technology is not self-sustaining yet, not from lack of trying. Solar panels are also pretty much limited by our technology and knowledge; they also require some rare earth metals to manufacture, and the production releases plenty of poisonous waste. So what other "tech" is out there to invest into?
Hell, if we swapped out every single coal plant for a nuclear one right now we would cut the amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere by a gigantic amount, and the amount of CO2. Two birds with one stone.
I'm all for it. What I'm against is panic decisions made under pressure from alarmist groups. Those rarely work well.
Re:When... (Score:1, Interesting)
Second, it's time for a fact check from the NY times. Here's just ONE notable figure in the global warming profit model, Al Gore:
"And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes."
Now before you respond to that quote, READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE THE QUOTE WAS IN!
Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor [nytimes.com]
THAT'S the get-rich-quick scheme! There are plenty more examples out there, but I picked this one because it's from an "objective source".
Now why was parent's post modded down?
Re:Premature (Score:4, Interesting)
We are more than aware of new technologies that can assist us in our move to greener living - some are less useful than others, and some are dead ends (you mention biofuels - I agree; these are a dead end).
You jump right into talking about banning people in Africa from burning wood. No one is suggesting that at the moment (at least, not seriously). The developed nations of the world are *vastly* the dominant polluters and energy consumers, so these are the houses that need to be put in order before we start looking at the contribution of wood burning in the third world.
There are a lot of scare stories, and a lot of naysayers, but a great deal of the green tech is just common sense - energy efficient homes and vehicles. If Ford took the cars they sell in Europe right now and put them on US lots (DoT crash tests and certification aside, which they would pass easily) then the MPG would shoot up across the board. It's only the ingrained culture of the US that demands a 3 litre V6 strapped to a lazy slushmatic gearbox in a family car when you can get equal power with considerably better fuel economy from a better-designed 4 cylinder, or even a (shock horror) diesel. That's without even moving away from oil.
Nuclear plants need to be built by the hundred. It's an extremely mature, well understood, green technology that is hobbled by an undeserved public image and crippling legislative issues and regulations. If we can produce a large proportion of our electricity from nuclear and other green sources we take out a major chunk of pollution.
Things like solar hot water (not PV-based) in new homes (in the developed world) would cut energy consumption drastically. Even in the UK, where our climate isn't exactly known for its blazing heat and sunshine, solar hot water systems have proven to be extremely effective. They are expensive to install, but as part of a new build they are a no-brainer. They should be mandated by law to be installed in every new house that is constructed.
A lot of large companies are lazy. BP spends a gigantic amount of money on its cash cow: oil. It spends a truly absurd amount of money annually seeking out new oil sites, while its spending on greener projects is much less. It is spending something, as are companies like Exxon/Shell etc but they could really do more if they wanted to, but there is an emphasis on shareholders and quarterly results. The oil giants made record profits, despite the global recession. They control vast amounts of wealth and are likely the key to our future energy crisis (the cause and the solution) when they choose to put their minds to it.
There's no real need for higher taxes on small businesses - they are generally just scare stories used to make people fear change. We are going to face a huge blow to everyone, including businesses when the cost of oil starts to be truly felt when it becomes scarce. It really is used for almost everything in the modern world that we consume.
Re:Premature (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no doubt that podiatrists know more about feet than I do. I also have no doubt that their recommendation was so biased and unrealistic it was laughable... despite their entirely sincere intentions.
I have no doubt that climatologists know more about the climate than I do...
Re:Premature (Score:3, Interesting)
Fossile fuels are getting scarce! ... nuclear power is not an option in the long run
Then I'm confused, what do you propose? Green technologies depend on power far more than old ones. You can build a 1970s car just for the cost of computers in a Prius. Windmills kill birds. River dams kill fish. Geothermal is not available everywhere. Solar is an option only for well-lit areas (goodbye, Norway and Finland.) Fusion is 20 years away, as usual. Should we, perhaps, commit a collective suicide, or live like Amish do?
Re:Premature (Score:1, Interesting)
"Atmospheric moisture has increased over 5% since 1970, corresponding with warmer seas, as forecast by the models."
I ask you to tell us all when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation entered its long warm phase(the PDO has a few short phases but we won't discuss them..yet). Now I ask you to look and tell us what condition the Arctic and Antarctic ice was in at the time. We'll wait.
Now, just to make this more interesting, tell us when the PDO previously shifted from its warm phase to a cool phase. In other words it's shifted recently but when did it make the long warm -> cool shift before that? And what condition was the Arctic and Antarctic ice?
I'll give you the answers: the PDO last entered a warm phase in the 1970's, and we're not entirely sure what the ice looked like but we're pretty certain it was denser than it is now with our Antarctic ice shelves breaking off and what-not.
That doesn't prove anything, right?
In the 1940's the PDO shifted from warm to cool(just like it did in the past couple years) and at the time the Arctic ice was thin enough to allow shipping through the area, AND we had record sizes of the Antarctic ice shelves breaking off... Then it got cold...again..
Now put that together and you realize that 60-ish years ago we were in the exact same state as we are now and if we were to look at the conditions in 1910-ish, we'd see what was going on in the 1970's.
It's a big cycle controlled by the PDO but you blame the warming on humans. That'd be less humorous/horrifying if the climatologists didn't recently admit they have indeed been seeing a cooling trend since 2000; note, not "cooler weather" but statistically a cooling *trend*. Please explain because according to the climatologists, your "5% moisture increase" was removed from the atmosphere around 2000 and allowed this trend to occur; almost if it were a part of some cycle, a cycle so long that most of us humans aren't able to remember when we entered it so it's only "logical" that we think it's only been warming throughout history...
Do I think that the PDO is responsible for everything? No, but even when it short-shifts, the weather changes drastically. Check the weather conditions in 1997/1998 when it short-shifted. We had a blizzard like we hadn't had since the early 1970's. Anecdotal, yes; purely coincidental, no.
dangerous conclusions (Score:3, Interesting)
and we can change the climate to make things better
That is what makes me suspicious of what some might call "gorebots"--those that assume not only the problem exists the way they see it, but that the solution is to try and "undo" it.
I think there is enough scientific evidence to suggest the climare is changing, that the world is slowly warming up, and even that human actvity involving the release of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases has affected climate.
What I am VERY concerned about is that there is so much certainty that the problem is acutually reversible simply by doing less of what they think caused the problem, and so little attention is being given to actually adapting to what might actually be too late to change.
Perhaps we could spend less time and money setting up elabourate carbon counting and trading schemes and start looking at REAL efficiency and conservation efforts (not just those that directly involve carbon emissions), investing in infrastructure to protect costal communities that we are fairly certain are vulnerable to rising sea levels, and so on.
It sounds like this national climate service specifically includes this as part of its proposed mandate, so that somewhat promising.
I'm sure you would call me a denier (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe the climate is changing, as it always has and thank goodness we're on the upstroke of an interglacial age - the crop growing region is moving toward the arable land, which is good for feeding our teeming billions. Another 5C and most of Russia and Canada become farmland instead of permafrost. I would say that this would make much of southern California uninhabitable, but that would be redundant. The first three settlements there were never heard from again - it's a desert made habitable with water resources that are desertifying millions of square miles of external lands.
On whether humans are impacting this process I might admit that we have had some barely measureable impact, though I wouldn't claim to know it for sure. Most especially I would not claim that were a bad thing
But on whether anything ill will come of that, I have much doubt. Most especially whether the ill will outweigh the good is a serious question. Whether we need to do anything about seas that rise mere millimeters a year I would seriously debate. We have much more important issues to discuss from colonization of Mars and the Asteroid belt, beginning the work on interstellar travel, to observing and preparing to defend against the inevitable world-crushing asteroid - to preserve Man against real known threats. To worry about how much it will cost the remote descendants of some residents of the Phillipines to move their huts further from an encroaching sea is absurd. If they don't want to get wet they should move inland at a stately 4 meters per year and they will without intervention as the water comes up. To crush the world economy on the speculation that Global Climate Change might escape to infinity based on the available evidence? That's madness.
And about the "Science" of "Scientists" who won't show their work, I have outright disbelief. We might as well subscribe to the opinions of Kevin Trudeau [discovermagazine.com]. What have they got that he hasn't got, and more importantly, what do they not want you to know?
But call me a denier if you want. Labelling and ad-hominem seems to be the message of your political party.
Widespread Lack of Intellectual Rigour (Score:4, Interesting)
I am noticing in many of the posts here a distinct lack of intellectual rigour. A friend of mine is an engineering professor, and he notices this amongst his students too. Specifically, many of his students have an attitude where they feel they can question any scientific theory. Fine you might say. After all, isn't it good to be skeptical? Well yes, perhaps. But when he asks these students specifically why they doubt a particular theory, they can't make a logical argument to support their position. They just say it doesn't intuitively seem right. It is almost as if they don't really comprehend the reasons for their opinions. And this is amongst elite engineering students.
If I could venture my own opinion on this, I think that relativistic values (and I don't mean Einstein) have seeped into much of our educational system, and by extension to society at large. This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth, where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value. In such a world, taken to its extreme, there are no facts, only opinions. Everything is relative.
On the left, we see university professors pontificating from institutions founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry that these Greek principles are merely just another cultural view in their relativistic universe. And from the right, we see religious leaders cavalierly rejecting the search for Truth through rational inquiry and observation, preferring to create their own "Truth" as revealed in the bible. What both of these extremes are forgetting is that this country was founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry, that in the founders' minds, the Greeks were a primary inspiration. Separation of Church and State; Science; Universities where Truth is the primary virtue; the ideals of Justice; a three class society, in which the Middle Class (the Polis) forms the backbone of society; Democracy. These were ALL Greek values and ideals. And has been these Greek ideals that have made our country great.
If you don't believe this, I suggest you read some Greek literature. Plato. Aristotle. Aristophanes. Sophocles. In Greek literature you will find commentary on many of the most important issues our society faces. The Greeks even wrote about cultural relativism. I believe we are sorely in need of a rediscovery of Greek wisdom.
And here is my main point. I believe that many in our society are abandoning the Greek values that have made our civilization great. Values such as searching for Truth for Truth's sake through rational inquiry and logic. Skills such as rigorous logic applied in rational debate. In our modern technological society it often seems that Truth should only be pursued for material gain, for profit and not simply because it is noble to pursue the truth. Thus it is easy for business executives to ignore inconvenient facts if those facts might interfere with profit margins. And it is easy for religious followers to adopt truths that make them feel more comfortable with their chosen worldview. After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.
Re:Letter to Dr. Jane (Score:1, Interesting)
Hey Welfare Queen ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Taxpayer Maybe you should go to wattsupwiththat.com where Tony 'I haven't a clue' Watts has encourage his believers to send in at least five frivolous FOIA requests for weather data from five countries each. Tony and the rest of his idiots are bragging that they've sent in AT LEAST MILLION FOIA requests since he started his campaign. By the way since these idiots are demanding paper copies of all the data in each FOIA request it amounts to a tractor-trailer load of paper for each FOIA. Care to complain about the waste of taxpayer money? Maybe you ought to take the time to learn a little high school science rather that being a ditto head