NOAA links extreme weather to climate change

[edpeak]

It looks like the number of ways they are quietly
(or not quietly) killing off funding for research that
is needed to have a good idea of where we really stand,
keeps going up, so a threat on false "what
we don't know won't hurt us" government
cuts to start off with:


Whatever part of (politically inconvenient) truth that is
still alive, they are busy trying to kill off:

Example #1

"Energy Secretary Quietly Dismantles Independent Science Advisory Board" ( http://peakoil.com/article13862.html )

Even more frightening example #2:

NOAA Loses Funding to Gather Long-Term Climate Data
Science Magazine, Jan. 14, 2005

Congress has eliminated funding for a fledgling network of 110 observation stations intended to provide a definitive, long-term climate record for the United States.

The surprise assault on the Climate Reference Network (CRN) was buried in the 3000-page omnibus spending package for 2005 signed last month by President George W. Bush (Science, 3 December 2004, p. 1662). Legislators also took a bite out of a long-established atmospheric monitoring network that includes the historic time sequence of increasing carbon dioxide levels measured at Hawaii's Mauna Loa.

Both networks are key pillars in a much-touted international "system of systems" for earth observation that the Bush Administration has called essential for resolving uncertainties in the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (Science, 20 August 2004, p. 1096).

And a "nice" cut of almost HALF of the formerly 24m budget:

"[CRN] ties everything together," says Richard Hallgren, former director of the National Weather Service and executive director emeritus of the American Meteorological Society. "Eliminating it would be an absolute disaster."

The excision of CRN's $3 million budget is part of a $10.6 million cut in the $24.3 million climate observations and services program, which supports a far-flung monitoring system operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

...To Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, the message from legislators is even bleaker. "It's almost as if some people don't want to know how the climate is changing," he says. "Maybe they prefer uncertainty, so that they can avoid taking action."

http://heatisonline.org/contentserver/o ... ethod=full

Anyone have an update of whether at least some of those
massive cuts were later reversed?

[edpeak]

Add today's peakoil.com item below, to the list above..

The government's ability to understand and predict hurricanes, drought and climate changes of all kinds is in danger because of deep cuts facing many Earth satellite programs and major delays in launching some of its most important new instruments, a panel of experts has concluded.

The two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, released yesterday, determined that NASA's earth science budget has declined 30 percent since 2000. It stands to fall further as funding shifts to [distract the masses with] plans for a manned mission to the moon and Mars.

about $500 million a year is needed to restore NASA's earth science program to health -- essentially a return to the budgets during the Clinton administration.

http://peakoil.com/article22493.html

"NASA's budget has taken a major hit at the same time that NOAA's program has fallen off the rails," said panel co-chairman Berrien Moore III of the University of New Hampshire. "This combination is very, very disturbing, and it's coming at the very time that we need the information most."

...The recommendations, as outlined in a briefing document, call for increased spending on the study of ice-sheet and sea-level changes as well as extreme weather and "heat events" to better understand climate change, for restoring and expanding the "capability to observe natural hazards and environmental changes," and for making available promising new measurements that will improve weather forecasting.

The panel also recommends that NOAA restore to two satellite projects "key climate, environmental, and weather observation capabilities" that were dropped for financial reasons.

[Cobra_Strike]

The less information there is, the muddier the waters can become. Its nice to see that people are trying to cloud the issue, it means the issue has merit.

[joewp]

I guess they're convinced that once they start Armageddon by invading Iran, we won't need that silly "science" anymore. After all, Jesus is going to come down and take the 144,000 off to heaven or someplace, and they all think they're in the chosen group.

Born again Christians (like Bush and many other politicians) and radical Islamists (like Ahmadinejad and many other Muslim leaders) think the last war is almost upon us, and actually want to get the ball rolling.

I wish Jesus and Mohammad would come and take them already and leave us sane ones alone.

[KrellEnergySource]

As long as we try to fund more programs, overall, than we can afford, it's hard to argue with anything being cut. It's more a question of "Is this program worth borrowing to continue?"

My own belief is that our government should fund science research programs like these. It is in our national interest to do 'our own' research and keep the results public. That should help the electorate be better informed as there should be less 'spin' to the results than if privately funded.

But where will the money come from??

Brian

[eric_b]

All I can do is shake my head. The NOAA cut (~10 million) is chump change compared to what's being squandered in Iraq. Probably more money disappears in Iraq daily. They can't even throw the science dog a few scraps.

At times it really does seem like TPTB are ruthlessly trying to eliminate any resistance preventing this crazy train from flying off the cliff full speed.

[gego]

Edpeak, the problem with your thinking is that it is collectivist. Who cares what this insane government is funding? There is life outside of the big papa doing all the deciding, all the research, and all the taking care of. If you were an independent human being instead of part of some collective identity (American, Jew, etc.) maybe you would not worry about the group that you see yourself a part of coming up with the solution to your life, and instead you would take responsibility yourself for yourself.

People who depend upon others, particularly organizations like government, to solve their survival problems are, rightfully so, doomed.

[Frank]

These actions were Oldspend. The new Congress will change direction again (and it'll be hard for the exec. branch to veto as long as there's good publicity).

I hope.

[edpeak]

is chump change compared to what's being squandered in Iraq.

Exactly...let's see, if we let them keep all of 90% of their insane
military adventure budget, and took out only 10% from their
collectivist "welfare for halliburton, big oil, et al" we'd have
50 billion dollars.

That's not even counting the 12-figure "extra-ordinary" spent
on iraq, just the 12-figure 500 billion of "Regular"..What
could we do with 50 billion? That's one hundred projects
each getting 500 million, or a thousand projects
each funded for 50 million. Getting information
so we know what the state of the planet is so we don't
step even closer to the cliff, might, just might, be a valuable
way to spend our money.

I'm tired of rightwing nonsense about "you can't
let big govt do it all" we already ARE letting huge huge
government spend hundreds of billions, and we
are not proposing that is spend one single penny
more than it already is - just to use OUR tax dollars
on something construcitve and helpful, for a change.

I'm tired of people being soft on government. Anyone
who lets government off the hook for wastful
spending that is either unhelpful, or
even harmful to our interests, when the same
billions could be spent on protecting public health,
is Soft on Government.

Speaking of not protecting us, see the bird flu post
on how we can protect ourselves with stockpiles...unfortunately
we CANNOT do the same and have each individual family,
each individual household, condust their own research
into how climate is being affected on planet earth (we
also can't individually replace a Defensive army, but
I'm not proposing we cut out funds for a truly
defensive army, just the hundreds of billions
extra that are fat for corporations and for
emperial ambitions that actually make us less safe)

10 measly million? How much would adding a measly 1% to the
tax rate of those making over 5,000,000 per year? Right
now those folks pay the same rate as a family making
a measly 336,000 per year, 35%, they can't pay 36% if
they make more than 10 times that? Most Democrats
are like most Republicans, populist talk, no action, a few
of each plus a few independents actually mean it.....

[edpeak]

Hope you're right, Frank...

[edpeak]

Well what do you know...googling for more on bird flu and found

http://www.scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/

which just happened to have some on the preveious topic,
in a handy little graphic,

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/u ... 1/mail.jpg

notice it's not just public health but even safety,
like all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations, but
instead of using OUR money on those sensible
things, it's boondoggles and empire instead...epitaph
for the human race or only for Bushco empire?

someone safe a local copy of that graphic maybe..?

[Ferretlover]

NOAA links extreme weather to climate change
By Wyatt Andrews

(CBS News) On Tuesday, for the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It's the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The report says last year's record drought in Texas was made "roughly 20 times more likely" because of man-made climate change, specifically meaning warming that comes from greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide. The study, requested by NOAA, looked at 50 years of weather data in Texas and concluded that man-made warming had to be a factor in the drought.
The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."
Aside from the Texas drought, NOAA called the entire year of 2011 the year of extreme weather events, starting in Joplin, Missouri.
-January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record
-Drought reaches record 56 percent of continental U.S. …
NOAA made a point of saying in their study that the climate change they've identified is man-made.
Going back 50 years, they know what temperature and dryness conditions are associated with Texas drought. When they put that in the computer, nothing explained the intensity and duration of what we saw last year in Texas until they factored in the added heat coming from climate change. You're going to see a lot of scientists criticizing this as a guess, but NOAA for the first time is arguing that this is science.

CBS

[dohboi]

Well, good on NOAA for finally being so straightforward (though, of course, by this time that they can so quickly attribute these events so strongly with GW, it is now already to avoid catastrophic consequences--in fact, the beginnings of those consequences are now upon us.)

I liked how the biologist put it on the site I linked to on the CC thread regarding trying to practice agriculture in our new climate--it's like farming in hell.

(And practicing farmers on other sites have confirmed this assessment.)

[rockdoc123]

I find it a bit strange that NOAA would choose to only use data since 1960 when they have the full record back to 1900 or in some cases earlier. You see an entirely different picture when you look at the full spectrum.

First lets look at Texas temperatures this data from NOAA



Yes it is clear there is a general rise from 1960 to present but what about the years prior to 1960? What about the heat waves we know about from the thirties and fifties? If you look at the data as a whole there is no statistically significant rise in Texas average temperatures since 1900.

Next we should look at precipitation. The following graph shows NOAA recorded annual precipitation for Texas from 1900 to precent


from that plot if you were only looking at the last 50 years you would say, yes indeed the current Texas drought is bad and an argument could be made then that droughts had worsened over that time period. But what about the 60 years previous to that? As you can see droughts were as frequent, as bad and seemed to be longer lived in the thirties and fifties.

Finally going broader afield the western states Palmer Drought index data is shown in this plot from NOAA



And I think it is pretty obvious that over the entire period of 1900 to present there is really no visible pattern developed.

So the conundrum here as far as I see it is if the NOAA wants to explain droughts in Texas over the past 50 years by global warming then how do they explain the same or worse drought patterns in the thirties and fifties?

[Ferretlover]

So the conundrum here as far as I see it is if the NOAA wants to explain droughts in Texas over the past 50 years by global warming then how do they explain the same or worse drought patterns in the thirties and fifties?

Republican farming techniques? J/K! I don't know how they could explain it--I just posted it to hear opinions on it and maybe get a better perspective from people who know more than I.

[dohboi]

I've given up tracking down all his sources and non-sources, but for the unwary--be warned that the good doctor has a long history of cherry picking data, manipulating graphs, or just outright lying. If anyone else wants to bother to track down his latest inanities, be my guest. On the other hand, what's the use. He's clearly convinced himself that he is smarter than nearly all climate scientists, every established scientific body in the world, and now NOAA.

Well, at least he's consistent in his megalomania.

[dorlomin]

Converging catastrophes. Bit by bit and day by day we are begining to see and feel the various converging issues we have been putting on the back burner. Financial problems due to runnaway credit to cover for offshored jobs. The competition with new economies for the same oil production to drive up petrol prices. And the slow but steady change in atmopheric patterns and the world warms. [those of a more doomerish tone can quite happily add a few more]

We knew this was coming.

We are seeing the early phases of what was predicted.

[dohboi]

"Converging catastrophes"

Nicely put.

[rockdoc123]

I've given up tracking down all his sources and non-sources, but for the unwary--be warned that the good doctor has a long history of cherry picking data, manipulating graphs, or just outright lying. If anyone else wants to bother to track down his latest inanities, be my guest. On the other hand, what's the use. He's clearly convinced himself that he is smarter than nearly all climate scientists, every established scientific body in the world, and now NOAA.

excuse me mods while I get quite mad at this. Dohboi please quit being such a complete and utter arse. Anyone who knows anything about the NOAA site realizes all of this data is readily available through their website. The graphs shown are plotted using their engine which uses their data and is impossible to manipulate. You choose the date, the state or region and then whether you want temperature or precipitation, it is that easy that someone even with a double digit IQ (such as yourself) could create a graph. I have said this on numerous occassions here but you chose to either ignore it or disbelieve it.
Since you are obviously too stunned to find it on your own here is the link to NCDC Climate at a glance
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res ... g3/tx.html
And as to the other plot it obviously comes from the NOAA site does it not? It has their logo ...or are you now accusing me of creating an NOAA logo and putting it on a diagram rather than perhaps just copying it from their discussion on drought?
What a complete idiot.
The current drought in the US is less than half the area affected by the thirties and fifties droughts which makes the argument of "global" warming even less tractable.

The point that you are evading here is the NOAA press release says specifically they looked only at the last 50 years. My point is that the previous 60 years show similar drought patterns that are independent of any possible climate change argument.
It is well known amongst meteorologists that a strong La Nina winter is followed by a period of drought, it is relatively predictable. We are seeing natural patterns that you were obviously too young to remember (fifties) or your parents were to young to have experienced (thirties).

[jedrider]

Interesting looking at those temperature charts going back > 100 years. Scientists are supposed to factor out what they can before coming to their conclusions, which is why just looking at the chart would require some explanation. I have no doubt the changes we are seeing is linked to climate change from CO2. The receding artic and antarctic and moutain glaciers are proof enough. Then you will have post charts showing the last recession of the ice ages and tell us look and explain that, too. Yes, they probably all have their explanations as does our current predicament: Global warming appears here to stay.