Do We Really Need a National Climate Service?

coondoggie writes "I suppose it's natural for Washington to try and wrap issues up in a tidy legislative package for bureaucratic purposes (or perhaps other things more nefarious). But one has to wonder if we really need another government-led group, especially when it comes to the climate and all the sometimes controversial information that entails. But that's what is under way. Today the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on the need for a National Climate Service, that could meet the increased demand for climate information, the committee said. The NCS would provide a single point of contact of information climate forecasts and support for planning and management decisions by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector."

Comments

The National Academies recommended this

[DrJay]

This will undoubtedly induce all sorts of railing about both the government and climate, but this step was actually recommended by the National Academies of Science, and I'm happy that it's being seriously considered. The NAS issued in a report that, distilled down, says that we're already paying for climate science, but the info generated by that work isn't reaching the people who need it most, like the ones that have to manage water supplies in the desert southwest. When those people do find the research, it's typically not structured in a way that's especially useful to them. (For a more elaborate summary of the report, see here - full disclosure, i wrote that).

So, this is largely an attempt to take information we're already producing (the government has paid for climate research for a long time through NOAA and the NSF) and make it useful.

If you'd read the article - this *is* NOAA.

[Shag]

The NCS would fall under the auspices of NOAA but would utilize the expertise and resources of other federal agencies to meet the growing demand for climate services, the committee stated.

NOAA describes the NCS as being the nation's identified, accessible, official source of authoritative, regular, and timely climate information. That includes historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision support tools and early warning systems, and the development and delivery of valued climate services.

Which part of this is unclear? This is NOAA (who are good at what they do) getting access to even more "expertise and resources." Sounds cool.

Re:Weather is global

[LordKazan]

If AccuWeather and Rick Santorum had their way not only would we be paying for the NOAA/NWS to make those forcasts, but then we wouldn't be able to get that data from them without going through a pay-company like AccuWeather.

AccuWeather wants us to pay for it twice, just so we can pay them for work they didn't do.

[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuWeather ]

Re:Yes

[kholburn]

Because "climate" and "weather" are different things.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[LordKazan]

The NOAA and it's subsidiaries (which the NCS would be one) are one of the most effective government agencies ever created. Not only is it filled with competent scientists it's also filled with ones that know how to keep up with technology to disseminate information as efficiently as possible.