Slashdot Mirror

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
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
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
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.

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
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
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
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.

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
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
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
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.

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
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
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
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.

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
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
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
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.

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
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
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
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.

Did you miss the "Free data" link on the website http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html? NCDC tries to limit the charging of "$$$$" to only commercial and private entities in order to help offset the enormous cost of ingesting, archiving, and processing one of the world's largest datasets; we're not fully funded by Congress.

Charging for data is a touchy subject around here, though--the scientists, developers, customer service people, and management would all love to give away as much of our data as possible (and we give away a lot of it), but the money is always an issue.

Way to go. We already have a national weather service. 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.

It's one of those once-in-a-lifetime events. I could be worried about an elevator car falling 20 stories and killing me in the fall, or being hit by lightning. Either of those are more likely than a repeat of 9/11.

I doubted this claim, so I had to check it. I don't think you're right. In the case of lightning, it's true that lightning strikes are much, much more frequent than terrorist attacks; but since one terrorist attack can cause many fatalities, you may still be more at risk from terrorists than you are from lightning. Reportedly lightning killed about 90 people in the US per year in the period 1959-1994. It'd take 30 years of lightning to make one 9/11.

As far as I can tell about falling lifts, there seems to be very very sparse evidence of people dying in falling lifts. In fact there seem to have been only two cases, ever. The first, as it happens, is precisely the case of 9/11. The other is a case from 1945 mentioned in the same link -- the article claims that that was the only fatality caused by a falling lift, prior to 9/11. There's also one case (near the bottom of the page) where a man in a hospital gurney was trapped when a lift slipped a couple of metres while his gurney was partway out the door, but that's not quite the same thing.

Most lift fatalities appear to be a result of people falling down an empty shaft, with a minority caused by people being trapped between moving parts (including a couple of famous decapitation cases) and electrocutions. And one case of a person drowning in a lift. But reports of lift fatalities seems to range between 16 and 30 per year within the US. I'd say you're definitely more at risk from terrorists than you are from lift accidents of any kind.

I actually make my living designing and launching weather balloon instruments at NOAA. We use 1500 gram latex balloons, filled with helium. Each one rises until the pressure reaches 12mb (about 100,000 feet), at which time a microcontroller pressure sensor circuit cuts off the valve lid to allow a nice smooth descent. Here are some pictures from a camera launched on one: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/Photo_Gallery/Projects/balloon_flight/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/Photo_Gallery/Projects/flight-11-2-06/ (picture number 204 from the first set is my favorite)

I actually make my living designing and launching weather balloon instruments at NOAA. We use 1500 gram latex balloons, filled with helium. Each one rises until the pressure reaches 12mb (about 100,000 feet), at which time a microcontroller pressure sensor circuit cuts off the valve lid to allow a nice smooth descent. Here are some pictures from a camera launched on one: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/Photo_Gallery/Projects/balloon_flight/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/Photo_Gallery/Projects/flight-11-2-06/ (picture number 204 from the first set is my favorite)

The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount of energy required. A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x10^13 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 10^13 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.

Direct satellite measurements of solar output for the last 30 years.

Here's what NOAA has to say about the holocene maximum:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

Climatologists did not worry about an imminent ice age in the 70s. It's a myth.

For two weeks last spring, hackers wormed their way inside a computer system that plays a key role in moving electrical power where it is needed around the state. The computers belong to the California Independent Service Operator, an agency that oversees much of the state's electricity transmission grid--including the massive complex of power plants and transmission lines. Cal-ISO patched the flaw that allowed hackers to roam through portions of its network before power supplies were affected. But the episode sent shock waves throughout the energy industry.
The crux of the issue is that the system is vulnerable - recall 2003 when a single tree branch killed power across several states for a week? That is not indicative of a healthy and robust grid system. And if the system is that vulnerable to an accident what would happen if somebody with malice aforethought (and a degree in EE) decided to spice things up a bit?
Unless the utility companies make explicit plans to correct things a macro-catastrophe is inevitable. Personally I think that a solar storm is more likely than a terrorist attack but it *WILL* happen and tens of millions of people will lose their grid indefinitely (probably several years to restore full access). (I further predict that the system will be rebuilt to the old specs because it will be cheaper and easier to do it that way, flushing an opportunity to build a hardened grid).
This is your transformer. (note that this company claims to be able to repair your transformer in less than 30 weeks - that means that)
This is your transformer after a solar storm. Yes, the sun did this.
This is the transformer with which most geeks are more familiar.

Here's a better link to what's going on and what instruments are being used. A media day will be held May 8th at the National Weather Center in Norman, Okla. Interested media will have the opportunity to tour VORTEX2 research vehicles and interview VORTEX2 researchers and teams. I worked for about two years at NSSL. I was never a storm chaser, I just help design and build the instrumentation. It was a real hoot - one of the best jobs I've ever had!

You mean this data? ... Or this one?

Interestingly, I posted another reply to your parent comment that also included those links. Except, I linked to the main page. I was referring to the figures above the one you directly linked to. Figures A2 and A show the Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change, measured using two different data sets. Uncertainty is indicated by the green bars. Notice the trend in both figures.

The graph you're talking about from 1880 onwards is from this paper, where they specifically state that the warming in the U.S. is known to be smaller than the rest of the world. The reasons for this are not (to my knowledge) completely understood. But the rest of the world have had temperature sensors too, and we've had satellites up for decades which provide the basis for the statement that global temperatures are increasing faster than temperatures in the U.S.

In my opinion, any evidence based on "global temperature" that includes data from more than just recent years should be viewed with scepticism, because our worldwide measurement and calculation techniques have changed dramatically, which likely skews the results in one direction or another.

Figure A (linked to above) is based on this article, which describes adjusting for inhomogeneities in station records and station history adjustments. Sensibly integrating differing datasets is an irritating task, and it's an ongoing process. But it doesn't seem to be a problem climate scientists are ignoring- the techniques for dealing with non-uniform noise characteristics for different data sets are well known.

Furthermore, we don't just have to rely on mechanical recording devices. Tree rings, coral growth rates, borehole measurements and ice core proxies can be used to independently verify the temperature record. They agree to within the limits of experimental uncertainty.

NASA presents data on mean global temperature extending from today back to 1880 as a single line graph with no error bars, which is ridiculous.

Yes, the particular graphs you linked to on that page aren't very detailed. Instead, I suggest the IPCC 4th report. Download chapter 3, open the PDF to page 15 (which is labeled 249) and look at figure 3.6. It includes 5-95% error bars. The trend obtained from the data in figure 3.6 is 0.65 C plus or minus 0.2 C over the period from 1901 to 2005. The report notes that this rate is higher than at any other point since the 11th century.

My point is that arriving at a "mean global temperature" is a very difficult calculation to make.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think scientists should be careful to state the estimated uncertainty in all their statements, and abrupt climate change is no exception. It's just that the error bars are now small enough to rule out the hypotheses "climate change isn't happening" and "climate change is largely natural."

But I thought that 1C was the predicted temperature change after 90 more years of all of the global carbon emissions

No, "the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4C by 2100". They say the temperature has already increased 1C since the 1800s.

Falcon

Hmmmm, how much is the bet?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/mb/supp_cstl_population.html

Hmm, according to NOAA ~50% of the population will live in counties adjacent to US coastlines (including the Great Lakes) by 2015, so my value might be high but it's probably in the right ballpark.

Only one such user is needed

Yep, only one in a world population of 6,770,000,000+ people.

Compare that to the odds of being struck by lightning in a lifetime: 1 in 5000.

In other words if you had the same odds of finding DRM breaker as a person who will be struck by lightning you're talking more than a million people.

Information really does "want" to be free, whatever the reactionaries might like to claim.

Excuse me, but what exactly is the "tropical north atlantic"?

You have to ask questions like that and you say I don't know what I'm talking about? Educate yourself.

The fact is, global warming is not as clear as some people would have us believe, and a true scientist will consider all data. The topic was started when someone said that there are no peer reviewed articles showing that global warming isn't due to CO2, and I found one peer reviewed article that shows that is false. If you look for 10 minutes, you can find others. It isn't hard.

Yes - also a good site is Space Weather Prediction Center. It monitors several instruments including pictures of the Sun, GOES X-ray, ACE, ground and satellite information in near real-time and current and past solar conditions.

Actually, it hasn't begun: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html. The sun is in a prolonged period of low activity, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715). Interesting times!

I just got this information in email. This is from the volcano email post list.

-------
Alaska Volcano Observatory
Information Statement
Monday, March 23, 2009 12:18 PM AKDT (12:18 UTC)

Redoubt Volcano
60Â29'7" N 152Â44'38" W, Summit Elevation 10197 ft (3108 m)
Current Volcano Alert Level: WARNING
Current Aviation Color Code: RED

Beginning last night (Sunday March 22, 2009) at approximately 22:38
AKDT, Redoubt Volcano produced a series of five explosive eruptions
that each lasted from four to thirty minutes. The last one ended at
5:00 AM AKDT this morning (March 23). National Weather Service radar,
pilot reports, and AVO analysis of satellite imagery suggest that
these events produced ash clouds that reached 60,000 ft above sea
level (asl), with the bulk of the ash volume between 25 - 30,000 ft
asl. Traces of ash fall have been reported in Skwentna, Talkeetna,
Wasilla, and Trapper Creek.

AVO remains at Aviation Color Code RED and Alert Level WARNING.
Seismic unrest continues at Redoubt in the form of elevated volcanic
tremor. NEXRAD radar data show that the last significant ash emission
was concurrent with the final explosive event at 5:00 AM AKDT. Since
that time, no ash has been visible in radar, suggesting that if ash
emission is occurring, it is below approximately 13,000 ft asl and/or
too fine to be detected. Poor weather at the volcano currently hinders
visual observations.

Last night's explosive eruptions caused melting of the Drift glacier
and greatly increased discharge down the Drift River. AVO plans a
helicopter overflight to the area today to assess conditions at the
volcano and along the Drift River. The explosions also destroyed one
seismic station near the volcano's summit (RSO), and disrupted
telemetry from AVO's observation hut. This telemetry outage affects
the web camera, a continuous GPS station, and two broadband seismic
stations. Repairs to this data link will be undertaken as conditions
permit. Seven telemetered seismic stations surrounding Redoubt remain
in operation.

The eruptions were preceded by approximately 60 hours of elevated
seismicity in the form of discrete earthquakes under the volcano. AVO
raised the Aviation Color Code/Alert Level from YELLOW/ADVISORY to
ORANGE/WATCH on Saturday, March 21 at 22:09 AKDT. This increase in
seismicity likely reflected the upward movement of magma towards the
surface. Prior to this weekend, Redoubt had exhibited signs of
volcanic unrest beginning in the Fall of 2008 which then escalated in
late January, 2009. Last night's explosions were the first significant
ash-producing eruptions of the unrest.

Further explosive activity could occur with little or no warning, and
could occur intermittently for weeks or months. AVO remains staffed 24
hours per day will issue further information as it becomes available.

For up-to-date Ashfall Advisories and wind trajectories, please refer
to the National Weather Service website:
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/volcano.php.

Heavily ice-mantled Redoubt volcano is located on the western side of
Cook Inlet, 170 km (106 mi) southwest of Anchorage and 82 km (51 mi)
west of Kenai, within Lake Clark National Park. Redoubt is a
stratovolcano which rises to 10,197 feet above sea level. Recent
eruptions occurred in 1902, 1966-68, and 1989-90. The 1989-90 eruption
produced mudflows, or lahars, that traveled down the Drift River and
partially flooded the Drift River Oil Terminal facility. The ash
plumes produced by the 1989-90 eruption affected international air
traffic and resulted in minor or trace amounts of ash in the city of
Anchorage and other nearby communities.
-----
A glacier flood seems to be a real danger following this eruption. Along with the ash fall and other related dangers.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

Which has been switched off since 2000 (apparently)...http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/info/sans_SA/docs/statement.html

I remember when it was turned off. I thought they'd turned it back on after everybody started worrying about terrorists again - but I guess I was mistaken. At present, at least, they still have the option to turn it back on.

I know that before it was turned off there was a fair amount you could do to improve your GPS info by keeping a backlog of data, comparing it to data recorded at a known location, etc... They may have simply decided that SA was no longer effective.

Which has been switched off since 2000 (apparently)...http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/info/sans_SA/docs/statement.html

We won't do anything about these things till there's a loss of life. There's a 70% chance it hits the ocean, and with 1MT energy? There's pretty good odds it will go unnoticed by anything but defence satellites.

You think sea strikes are harmless? The odds of actually hitting a city are pretty small, but the odds of hitting a chunk of water near enough to populated areas to cause tsunami damage are much larger since, according to NOAA, coastal counties in the continental US account for only 17% of land area but have 53% of the population. Imagine what a 10m or more surge from a tsunami could do to the Netherlands, or Miami, or New York. For comparison purposes, the Sumatra tsunami of 2004 was estimated to release around 20MT of energy at the surface, and produced as much as 30m surges hundreds of miles away from the epicenter.

Agreed, but it wouldn't be as good a conspiracy theory without it!

I wish that blur wasn't there - there seems to be a continental shelf mudslide under the blurred part, and that is one of the more active regions wrt currents and shifting sandbars. They don't call it "The Graveyard of the Atlantic" for nothing.

I didn't see the Diamond Shoals Light on the map. Too bad; I've caught a bunch of tuna, blues, and mackerel around that thing, and fallen to sleep watching it's blink, blink out my bedroom window.

It seems that there's a buoy in the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary.

Agreed, but it wouldn't be as good a conspiracy theory without it!

I wish that blur wasn't there - there seems to be a continental shelf mudslide under the blurred part, and that is one of the more active regions wrt currents and shifting sandbars. They don't call it "The Graveyard of the Atlantic" for nothing.

I didn't see the Diamond Shoals Light on the map. Too bad; I've caught a bunch of tuna, blues, and mackerel around that thing, and fallen to sleep watching it's blink, blink out my bedroom window.

It seems that there's a buoy in the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary.

PS - The Monitor Marine Sanctuary is in the blurred area. It "...consists of a vertical water column in the Atlantic ocean one mile in diameter extending from the surface to the seabed, the center of which is at 35 00' 23" north latitude and 75 24' 32 west longitude." [From this Federal Regulation].

I noticed that same area when the day this story broke. What was so interesting that someone bothered to go searching?

I also wonder about these mini-seamounts off the coast of Nags Head - are they wrecks, or actual features?

Also, what's with the blurring here? It's probably where data was stitched, but it might be intentional blurring of the wreck of the Monitor. I like a good conspiracy theory.

>So...if carbon dioxide is not changing our climate, what is? Look to the Sun.

Yes, and in particular look at the direct measurements of solar output outside the atmosphere since 1978. Look at whether there's a trend, and look at how the current numbers compare with the numbers from the first measurements. Then look at what average temperature has been doing over the same time span.

Look to the research on proxy measurements of solar activity going back 250 years. Look at the upper bound it sets on the fraction of climate change that could be caused by solar output changes.

>There is already far more CO2 in the atmosphere than is needed to effectively absorb ALL infra-red radiation in the CO2 absorption band.

There's a complicated answer to this, but a simpler one is to look at Venus.

>It seems impossible to have any reasoned discussion about carbon dioxide.

Not impossible, but it's made difficult by a campaign that repeats provably false assertions so often that even technically literate people start taking them seriously.

It seems impossible to have any reasoned discussion about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased from 290 ppm in pre-industrial times to 365 ppm today and that increase is NOT having a significant effect on climate. In the 'global warming' scenario, short wavelength radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere and warms the earth. The warmed earth then re-radiates long-wavelength infra-red radiation back into space, or at least tries to but is allegedly stopped by carbon dioxide. So...what's wrong with this? CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation in only a narrow wavelength band and it will not absorb any infra-red radiation with a wavelength outside of its absorption band. There is already far more CO2 in the atmosphere than is needed to effectively absorb ALL infra-red radiation in the CO2 absorption band. (A much bigger absorber of infra-red radiation in the atmosphere is...water vapor...but that's another movie.)

The effect of increasing CO2 concentration is therefore only to cause absorption to occur at a slightly lower altitude in the atmosphere and after carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation, it quickly collides with nearby, and far more abundant, oxygen and nitrogen molecules, transferring heat to them. These then re-radiate heat out into space. So...does increasing carbon dioxide concentration increase temperatures at all? Yes, but only to a relatively small extent because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide concentration due to the basic physics of absorption. The best estimate is that a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from the pre-industrial value (290 to 580 ppm) would increase global temperatures by 1.2C. Based on our current CO2 output it will take us another 100 years to reach 580 ppm, by which time we will have probably exhausted our fossil fuels anyway, if we believe the gloomy forecasts about petroleum reserves.

So...if carbon dioxide is not changing our climate, what is? Look to the Sun. Based on current information, the sun activity is declining and we can expect cooler weather in the future.

Flaw in the sonar system? Not really. It's sort of the other way around.

The global dataset is derived from satellite radar topography of the sea surface, the classic example being the work of Smith and Sandwill (1997). Properly processed, the topography of the sea surface correlates well with the underlying bathymetry. It's a good dataset, and comprehensive, but it is based on a model relationship between the sea surface and the ocean depth. It isn't perfect. Thus, ship-based soundings are still used as "ground truth" and are integrated with the global satellite bathymetry. Inevitably, the readings are slightly different, and, unfortunately, there are only a few places in the world where ship bathymetry is dense enough to completely replace the satellite bathymetry (e.g., areas of swath bathymetry). When the two datasets are merged together and gridded you end up with this kind of artifact, with the sonar-derived values slightly different. Unless you filter carefully you will see lines wherever the ship drove. This is why if you look around you'll also see tracks mysteriously converge on such ports as Bermuda and Hawaii.

So, if there's a flaw, it's more likely in the satellite-derived bathymetry and the model used for it, although sometimes the ship bathymetry can be whacked out too.

More details at:

Smith and Sandwell 1997 summary

ETOPO1 topography/bathymetry -- I think this is the dataset Google Earth is now using

Global Topography

The first one has a figure with a plot of the ship tracks.

You'd have to be pretty unfamiliar with the way this sort of data is collected in order to suspect it had anything to do with Atlantis.

The biggest problem is that you NEVER know whether any study published is done this way or not.

I'm pretty sure this used the flawed data: "Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth lowest January extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during January was 5.43 million square miles. The Arctic sea ice pack usually expands during the cold season, reaching a maximum in March, then contracts during the warm season, reaching a minimum in September."

Read it quick, before it vanishes.

Texas has seen temperatures ranging from -30C to +48C. (-23F ~ +120F)

In the last 2 weeks they updated the imagery of the sea floor already. It looks like they based it on the ETOPO1 dataset that was released last summer, and it is a BIG improvement. They also have some more detailed swath bathymetry from parts of the US coast and a few other locations. For example, along the Gulf Coast, outboard of the Mississippi Delta, you can see this knobbly seafloor terrain related to salt domes, and along the California coast are these submarine canyons near Monterey. It's pretty impressive compared to the crude seafloor terrain they had before.

Human activity typically puts out some 130 times more carbon dioxide than all the world's volcanoes combined. Neither come close to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by rotting foliage in the autumn - but that is cancelled out by the carbon dioxide absorbed by growing foliage in the spring. That's why the concentration in the atmosphere oscillates up and down, but maintains a continuous upward trend.

TV news is also invaluable if you live some place with frequent storms (e.g. anywhere in tornado alley).

You should be happy they are shutting down the analogs in mid February. There are so few February tornadoes that the NOAA lists all of them on one page.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=tornado_climatology_february

I have not checked, but I imagine the complete records of all June 'nados would probably be hundreds of pages not just one short page.

Also you have to be realistic. People have been getting warnings about the analog shutdown for YEARS. They do not get YEARS of warnings for a tornado strike. Thus it is only pure good luck that they are still alive. Giving them a couple more months or years of warnings will not help them get a DTV box. If they eventually get a converter anyway, when they try to take YEARS to respond to their new DIGITAL 'nado warning, they'll die just as well as when they would take YEARS to respond in the past. So, from a triage point of view, don't spend efforts worrying about them, since they cannot be saved.

>don't we have a bunch of satellites that do nothing but watch the sun and monitor space weather? If there's been some finding that the power delivered by the sun has increased, I missed it

Indeed we do, with direct measurements of solar output going back to 1978. Draw your own conclusions from the satellite measurements of power delivered by the sun.

The problem with the old analog ELTs is they don't ID. So when there is a false alert, nobody is sure who might be having a problem. A hard landing, painting a boat, and curious passengers all lead to trouble. I think the real problem is the cost. Shock and water proofing shouldn't add so much to a rather simple device. A good faq can be found at http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/faq.html

An interesting read on how cellular osmosis regulation imposed evolutionary pressures on plasma concentration in vertebrates. Explains why most vertebrates have pretty similar plasma concentrations. Which is about 1/3-1/4 the salinity of the sea, which varies from 33-37%.

Yes, I was in a hurry this morning and did indeed miss your references.

These things happen. The trick is to not just assume the worst, and double check to see if you perhaps missed something...

Above, you cite your temperature data source as
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
but in the Wiki entry, the stated source of temperature data is
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt

Well yes, I was discussing the figure I linked first in my comment: the graph which demonstrates the lack of correlation between sunspots and the most recent warming, while showing the greater correlation in overall trend with CO2. That is, this one. You'll note that that temperature data is indeed from the CRU. This, of course also explains why the sunspot data is different, and also why I mention CO2 data. A perusal of all the figures I linked would probably have made this clear very quickly...

Along that line, there is no explanation as to how deuterium data relates to sunspots. Is it a linear relationship? How would a reader know?

Well, for that figure I would presume anyone actually curious about such details would manage to note that the delta-deuterium data is a proxy for temperature not sunspots, and to try a simple search on the relevant terms. They'll rapidly pull up things like this, which should get them started (and answer your question off the bat -- yes, it is a linear relationship). After all, that's how I learned any of this.

My point being that considering just the information that was presented, as I saw it, even WITH the two sources you referenced, does not exactly prove anything.

Well no, the second figure showing data for the last 10000 years simply shows that there is some general correlation between solar activity and sunspots (though it is imperfect). It was the first figure that counts: it shows that while there may have been good correlation historically, the current warming trend does not correlate at all well with sunpots, but instead correlates rather better than with CO2 -- exactly the opposite of your original claims.

Yes, I was in a hurry this morning and did indeed miss your references. (I am used to looking under "References", not "Data Sources".)

However, looking at it more thoroughly now, your graphs are anything but straightforward for the lay person to understand, largely from the lack of information on the page.

Above, you cite your temperature data source as
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
but in the Wiki entry, the stated source of temperature data is
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
which data is originally from Jean Jouzel, from the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace in France. The former source does not reference the latter in any obvious way. So, which is it?

Similarly, above you cite
http://sidc.oma.be/
as your source for records of sunspot data, but on the Wiki page you cite the Solanki data
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
and again, the source cited above does not appear to reference the data source you cited in the Wiki article in any obvious way.

I do not see any citation for source of your CO2 data anywhere on the Wiki page, even within "Data Sources". The only two sources are the ones I have just mentioned.

There is a reference to the Mauna Loa data on a different page, linked to by one of the "related images", but that is not the page you originally referenced.

My point being that considering just the information that was presented, as I saw it, even WITH the two sources you referenced, does not exactly prove anything.

Along that line, there is no explanation as to how deuterium data relates to sunspots. Is it a linear relationship? How would a reader know? If so, great, but if not the graph would have little meaning. Nowhere is there any explanation as to the kinds of relationship here.

In any case, I see where there could have been a mistake, pointing me at that page rather than the other one linked to within that page. But under the circumstances, I think it should be pretty obvious why I basically stated "Huh? This doesn't appear to mean anything." And in fact, as given, it didn't.

Yes, I was in a hurry this morning and did indeed miss your references. (I am used to looking under "References", not "Data Sources".)

However, looking at it more thoroughly now, your graphs are anything but straightforward for the lay person to understand, largely from the lack of information on the page.

Above, you cite your temperature data source as
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
but in the Wiki entry, the stated source of temperature data is
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
which data is originally from Jean Jouzel, from the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace in France. The former source does not reference the latter in any obvious way. So, which is it?

Similarly, above you cite
http://sidc.oma.be/
as your source for records of sunspot data, but on the Wiki page you cite the Solanki data
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt
and again, the source cited above does not appear to reference the data source you cited in the Wiki article in any obvious way.

I do not see any citation for source of your CO2 data anywhere on the Wiki page, even within "Data Sources". The only two sources are the ones I have just mentioned.

There is a reference to the Mauna Loa data on a different page, linked to by one of the "related images", but that is not the page you originally referenced.

My point being that considering just the information that was presented, as I saw it, even WITH the two sources you referenced, does not exactly prove anything.

Along that line, there is no explanation as to how deuterium data relates to sunspots. Is it a linear relationship? How would a reader know? If so, great, but if not the graph would have little meaning. Nowhere is there any explanation as to the kinds of relationship here.

In any case, I see where there could have been a mistake, pointing me at that page rather than the other one linked to within that page. But under the circumstances, I think it should be pretty obvious why I basically stated "Huh? This doesn't appear to mean anything." And in fact, as given, it didn't.

And this chart is made up of data that came from... where?

The data sources listed in the Data Sources section on the page.

I did not see ANY citations of sources on that Wikipedia page

You didn't look too hard. The sites from which the raw data was taken are all listed. A cursory inspection of those sites will provide the information you want. Since that seems to be too much work:

• Temperature data is from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Among the papers on this dataset are:
  1. Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548
  2. Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
  3. Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
  4. Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670
• The sunspot data is drawn from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center in Belgium. Among the many many papers published using these datasets are:
  1. Carbonell, M., Terradas, J., Olivier, R. and Ballester, J.L. The statistical significance of the North-South asymmetry of solar activity revisited, A&A, 476, p 951-957.
  2. Balthasar, H. Rotational periodicities in sunspot relative numbers, A&A, 471, p 281-287.
  3. Pishkalo, M. Reconstruction of the Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilts Using Sunspot Numbers, Solar Physics, 233, p 277-290
  4. Kunjaya, C., Radiman, I., Dupe Z., Herdiwidjaja, D., Hakim, M.I.
     On The Prediction of El Niño 2002 Based On the Peak Of Sunspot Number in 2000, Proceedings of the ISCS Symp. 2003: Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment, ESA SP-535.
  5. Rybak, J. Karlovsky, V.
     Mutual relations of the intermediate periodicities of the Wolf sunspot number, Proceedings of the ISCS Symp. 2003: Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment, ESA SP-535 p.145-148

  You can see this page for a full list.

• The CO2 data was drawn from two listed sources. The first is the Mauna Loa observatory, and the second is the Law Dome ice core project in Antarctica. Both data sets are available via the NOAA. Mauna Loa data is from the Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division. Among the papers using this data set are:
  1. C.D. Keeling, R.B. Bacastow, A.E. Bainbridge, C.A. Ekdahl, P.R. Guenther, and L.S. Waterman, Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Tellus, vol. 28, 538-551, 1976.
  2. K.W. Thoning, P.P. Tans, and W.D. Komhyr, Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC data, 1974-1985, J. Geophys. Research, vol. 94, 8549-8565, 1989.

  The Law Dome data was taken from Word Data Center for Paleoclimatology Ice Core Gateway. Among the papers using this dataset are:

  1. Etheridge, D.M., G.I. Pearman, and F. de Silva. 1988. Atmospheric trace-gas variations as revealed by air trapped in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica. Ann. Glaciol.

And this chart is made up of data that came from... where?

The data sources listed in the Data Sources section on the page.

I did not see ANY citations of sources on that Wikipedia page

You didn't look too hard. The sites from which the raw data was taken are all listed. A cursory inspection of those sites will provide the information you want. Since that seems to be too much work:

• Temperature data is from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Among the papers on this dataset are:
  1. Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548
  2. Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199.
  3. Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
  4. Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670
• The sunspot data is drawn from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center in Belgium. Among the many many papers published using these datasets are:
  1. Carbonell, M., Terradas, J., Olivier, R. and Ballester, J.L. The statistical significance of the North-South asymmetry of solar activity revisited, A&A, 476, p 951-957.
  2. Balthasar, H. Rotational periodicities in sunspot relative numbers, A&A, 471, p 281-287.
  3. Pishkalo, M. Reconstruction of the Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilts Using Sunspot Numbers, Solar Physics, 233, p 277-290
  4. Kunjaya, C., Radiman, I., Dupe Z., Herdiwidjaja, D., Hakim, M.I.
     On The Prediction of El Niño 2002 Based On the Peak Of Sunspot Number in 2000, Proceedings of the ISCS Symp. 2003: Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment, ESA SP-535.
  5. Rybak, J. Karlovsky, V.
     Mutual relations of the intermediate periodicities of the Wolf sunspot number, Proceedings of the ISCS Symp. 2003: Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment, ESA SP-535 p.145-148

  You can see this page for a full list.

• The CO2 data was drawn from two listed sources. The first is the Mauna Loa observatory, and the second is the Law Dome ice core project in Antarctica. Both data sets are available via the NOAA. Mauna Loa data is from the Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division. Among the papers using this data set are:
  1. C.D. Keeling, R.B. Bacastow, A.E. Bainbridge, C.A. Ekdahl, P.R. Guenther, and L.S. Waterman, Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Tellus, vol. 28, 538-551, 1976.
  2. K.W. Thoning, P.P. Tans, and W.D. Komhyr, Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC data, 1974-1985, J. Geophys. Research, vol. 94, 8549-8565, 1989.

  The Law Dome data was taken from Word Data Center for Paleoclimatology Ice Core Gateway. Among the papers using this dataset are:

  1. Etheridge, D.M., G.I. Pearman, and F. de Silva. 1988. Atmospheric trace-gas variations as revealed by air trapped in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica. Ann. Glaciol.

Please check the NOAA solar storm warning levels. They explain how far back to the stone age we will go when a big (X level solar flare) is going to hit the Earth.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/index.html#GeomagneticStorms

On the communications. It is not just satellite communications that will get disrupted. But also HF, UHF and other type of communication. Your GSM (2G or 3G really doesn't matter) might work, but then it might not work. It is any body's guess.

People might be out of power for days or weeks in the worst case.