'Climate Service,' New Federal Climate Change Agency, Is Forming

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID | 02/ 8/10 12:41 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Fisheries Management

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate.

Also known as global warming, climate change has drawn widespread concern in recent years as temperatures around the world rise, threatening to harm crops, spread disease, increase sea levels, change storm and drought patterns and cause polar melting.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.

"Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference.

Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials.

NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Most atmospheric scientists believe that warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.

Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico.

"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.

Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.

Story continues below

The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country.

Lubchenco also announced a new NOAA climate portal on the Internet to collect a vast array of climatic data from NOAA and other sources. It will be "one-stop shopping into a world of climate information," she said.

Creation of the Climate Service requires a series of steps, including congressional committee approval. But if all goes well, it should be finished by the end of the year, officials said.

In recent years, a widespread private weather forecasting industry has grown up around the National Weather Service, and Lubchenco said she anticipates growth of private climate-related business around the new agency.

While most people notice the weather from day to day or week to week, climate looks at both the averages and extremes of weather over longer periods of time. And understanding both weather and climate, and their changes, are vital to much of the world's economic activity ranging from farming to travel to energy use and production and even food shipments and disease prevention.

Atmospheric scientists have long joked that climate is what you expect and weather is what you get. But greenhouse warming is changing what can be expected from climate, and researchers are seeking to understand and anticipate the impacts of that change.

___

On the Net:

NOAA: http://www.noaa.gov

Get HuffPost Green On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate. Also known as global warming, climate change has drawn widespread concern in r...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate. Also known as global warming, climate change has drawn widespread concern in r...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
349
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »   (6 pages total)
Show: 
marbiol   02:11 AM on 2/11/2010
if R's didnt STEAL my state's votes in 2000, not only would we have turned this "global warming' back to a "global coolling" regime (since we know global climate is never in stasis--its is either cooling or warming)--but. we would also have the "social security lock-box"---all the more crtitical since more people are now retiring andf SS is running a deficit!!

How STUPIID is the Amerkan electorate?? I'm beginning to think our first D preseident (Jefferson) wax right--only landed [=wealthy] and educated citizens should vote!! Only then could we keep SS in balance and our govt on TRACK!! Because we didnt heed Jefferson, people like palin end up as potentially c redible candidates for public office!! we MUST stop this TREND!!!

Cant we pass an education requirement for voters? That would cetrainl yeliminate bozo candidates like shrub and palin--amoing others!! we need to "cleanse" the electorate of ignorami!!!!
photo
fumes   01:36 PM on 2/10/2010
~WATER VAPOR CAN CAUSE BLIZZARDS NOW W/O WARNING~

no really.. looky here:

Climate 'Tipping Points' May Arrive Without Warning, Says Top Forecaster
February 9, 2010
PhysOrg.comm) -- A new University of California, Davis, study by a top ecological forecaster says it is harder than experts thought to predict when sudden shifts in Earth's natural systems will occur -- a worrisome finding for scientists trying to identify the tipping points that could push climate change into an irreparable global disaster.
http://www.physorg.com/news184963823.html
photo
FranklinCat   02:01 PM on 2/10/2010
Please explain the relevance of your editorial comment re: water vapor to the article you cite.
photo
fumes   02:23 PM on 2/10/2010
it's self-explanatory..
photo
FranklinCat   02:31 PM on 2/10/2010
Not in the least.
photo
fumes   02:35 PM on 2/10/2010
some get it..

some don't!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic   02:31 PM on 2/10/2010
I 'll skip a comment on the absurdity of your water vapor comment and say that we will most likely be able to identify tipping points when they are past and climate change has accelerated.
photo
DocSkull   08:32 PM on 2/10/2010
We forecast snow all the time. By tipping point they mean a condition of punctuated equilibrium where an historically predictable system reorganizes itself in a dramatic way.
photo
fumes   08:36 PM on 2/10/2010
woohoo.. listen to you stringin' them words together!

define: ''we''
photo
The last sane American   07:25 AM on 2/10/2010
Let me perfectly clear on this. I am not for big government. I'm NOT.

Just more government.

Have you ever seen a train without brakes? Now you have.
slithers   01:53 AM on 2/10/2010
Wasting more money
photo
DocSkull   08:34 PM on 2/10/2010
Since they don't make a profit and most of their costs are wages, governments operate cheaper than corporations and have a significantly larger social benefit.
photo
buckeyedave   06:44 PM on 2/09/2010
I believe the only logical thing to do is raise top 10% tax rate to 90% and spend the money studying the effects of climate change on poor populations.
photo
DocSkull   08:35 PM on 2/10/2010
Why does it have to be a crazy extreme? Besides, the studies on climate change are largely done. It is time to make policies which reduce its effects.
thebodyventura   03:48 PM on 2/09/2010
Maybe they can come up with some BS to explain this.

WHY does CO2 increase LAG increase in temperature in the Ice Core data by 800 years?

"This proves that rising CO2 was NOT the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
photo
Publicola   05:39 PM on 2/09/2010
"Maybe they can come up with some BS to explain this."

You say that as if it needs explanation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   10:59 PM on 2/09/2010
"WHY does CO2 increase LAG increase in temperature in the Ice Core data by 800 years?"

It's very simple. In the past, there was nothing BUT nature to cause climate change -- Solar cycles, orbital cycles, volcanic activity and asteroids, mostly. When Milankovitch cycles raised temperature, more CO2 was released to the atmosphere, due to natural processes, the details of which are not the point here. Once that CO2 was in the atmosphere, it accelerated the warming already in progress.

The emission of billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans is unprecedented in the geological record. So is CO2 being the "driver" of climate change. That does not rationally undermine the theory, which is conclusively proven. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
photo
guinganbresil   11:05 PM on 2/16/2010
Doubt:

The mechanism of 'trapping' heat involves CO2 lowering the infrared outgoing radiation. The outgoing radiation is INCREASING. The very mechanism for causing the warming the Earth is going in the wrong direction. You would think this would generate some questions... I guess not...
Bystander   03:35 PM on 2/09/2010
The new agency's website is globalwarmingfraud.gov.
thebodyventura   03:48 PM on 2/09/2010
Excellent!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   01:20 PM on 2/09/2010
Yesterday, and now a couple pages back, Dave Palin suggests that documented changes in birds' migratory habits are irrelevant because alligators have not begun migrating!

Do you believe it is more reasonable to conclude, from the fact that alligators have not begun now to migrate after millions of years of not migrating, that therefore climate change is disproved, or that therefore alligators' DNA has not mutated to make them suddenly migratory?

Such is the level of science fluency of the global warming denier.
thebodyventura   03:51 PM on 2/09/2010
"Such is the level of science fluency of the global warming denier."

Funny coming from someone who advocates the position that TREE RINGS can lead to some information about temperature.

"In 1998, a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.

The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever."

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q5ZGExZTc3ZTlmMTA5OTdhOGRjNzdlNmU4N2M4ZTg
photo
DocSkull   08:42 PM on 2/10/2010
Mann et al.'s paper wasn't just tree rings, but a broad spectrum of information. Pretty much everything that was available at the time. Scientists have been using tree rings to reconstruct environmental history since the early 20th century. It is a rather simple process of counting rings and measuring their thickness. A child can readily understand how it works.

Your link includes a link to Realclimate article explaining Mann et al.'s methods and why his critics are wrong. Did you read it?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/
thebodyventura   03:55 PM on 2/09/2010
Pt II

" Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.

4: Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann's co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 tree data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

5: When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result."

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q5ZGExZTc3ZTlmMTA5OTdhOGRjNzdlNmU4N2M4ZTg
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif
photo
Publicola   05:50 PM on 2/09/2010
"Funny coming from someone who advocates the position that TREE RINGS can lead to some information about temperature."

You say that as it if were false, which it isn't.

"When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative"

Fascinating - except that it's wrong.

"A reworked chronology, based on additional data, including those used in McIntyre's analysis, is similar to our previously published chronologies. Our earlier work thus provides a defensible and reasonable indication of tree growth changes during the 20th century and in the context of long-term changes reconstructed over the last two millennia in the vicinity of the larch tree line in southern Yamal. McIntyre's use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   12:47 PM on 2/09/2010
For all you self-styled budget hawks:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants
One often hears opponents of clean energy say that renewable sources are too expensive; they can’t get by without subsidies; they can’t compete in a “free market.” One of the many reasons this is a daffy argument is that there is no such thing as a free market, certainly not in energy. Existing energy sources, fossil fuels, have benefited from a century of subsidies and supporting infrastructure—and are still subsidized lavishly relative to their scrappy little competitors.

This is a point enviros often make, but a new report from the Environmental Law Institute and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars puts some teeth in it.
================

Between 2002-2008, traditional fossil fuels received $16.3 **Billion** directly from the government, and cost us $59.3 Billion more in tax breaks.
Real renewable energy technologies received less than one fourth the amount in total assistance. So who does this prove NEEDS more help to appear "competitive"? Coal and petroleum. Clean competitors have made their way to the California desert (wind) and a few rooftops (solar photovoltaic) with 25% as much as the help given WITH YOUR TAXMENTS to the industries WHICH ALREADY HAVE THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF BEING THE ESTABLISHED SUPPLIERS IN THE ENERGY MARKET.

Coal and petroleum have already proven that they cannot compete with an unfair advantage, provided by our taxes. Wake up!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   12:53 PM on 2/09/2010
your tax payments
thebodyventura   03:57 PM on 2/09/2010
It doesnt seem to bother the greenies when it is applied to ethanol.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   11:01 PM on 2/09/2010
photo
JerryAguy   12:40 PM on 2/09/2010
Another waste of money, why not form a task force to stop earthquakes while we're at it since we have as much chance of success stopping either being that they have both been happening over billions of years and will continue long after we're gone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   03:13 PM on 2/09/2010
Within the energy industry, coal and petroleum are the waste of the most money.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants

Anybody with any understanding of economics knows that propping up the **established** interests in any industry, and calling that a "free market" is lunacy. The question is not whether to start rigging the market for energy; it has been rigged for the entirely of the past century.

The question is when will we start rigging it intelligently.
photo
Publicola   06:05 PM on 2/09/2010
"we have as much chance of success stopping"

Bzzt! Straw man. Climate scientists do not say that we can "stop" global warming - instead they say we can slow it down.

"either being that they have both been happening over billions of years and will continue long after we're gone."

By that "logic" we are also unable address, say, polluted water, since polluted water too "has been happening over billions of years and will continue long after we're gone." Which is to say that isn't "logic" at all.
photo
Publicola   06:06 PM on 2/09/2010
Ooops - that last post was in response to JerryAguy's post, not ReedYoung's.
photo
quorthon   10:30 AM on 2/09/2010
More than likely, this is just a reorganization, drawing on existing personnel and resources. Where were all of you anti-big-government crusaders when the Iraq war broke out? Get a life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   03:15 PM on 2/09/2010
I agree. And good organization is important, in communities from a city block to a federal agency.

Fanned.
photo
John Mainstream   09:54 AM on 2/09/2010
The Obama Administration...brought to you by the atomic energy lobby.
sc300nc   08:44 AM on 2/09/2010
THese scholars that we hire for our leaders only know how to do a couple of things. Announce studies and build up the bureaucracy.
photo
DocSkull   12:03 PM on 2/09/2010
Even if that was true, it would be preferable to the alternative.
photo
simarti44   02:59 AM on 2/09/2010
The Chemtrail committee!
wwwlibros2012net   05:16 AM on 2/09/2010
Stop Secrets...

www.libros2012.net
thebodyventura   01:38 AM on 2/09/2010
Repackage, Remarket, and RESELL!

Its the American way!

I wonder how much this nonsense will cost the taxpayer?
photo
DocSkull   08:44 AM on 2/09/2010
Where were you when Bush was launching unnecessary wars?
thebodyventura   03:32 PM on 2/09/2010
I voted against Bush in each election. Good enough for you.

Twitter Edition