By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

NOAA wants to establish a National Climate Service.  Although more coordinated efforts and improvements are needed, NOAA has not shown the ability to accurately assess global temperatures nor look behind the discredited carbon driven climate change theory. Their one pager PDF says it all. Though they correctly noted the need to “clarify and consolidate information regarding the causes and effects of climate change”, they only show the CO2 trend and their faulty GHCN global temperatures. This is virtually the same bogus data set that NASA GISS uses that Steve Goddard (with help from Steve McIntyre) showed in the Register here was out of touch with reality as shown by satellites which cover the earth far better and are not subject to the siting and local urban contamination.

NCDC in 2007 removed an urban adjustment that their director, Tom Karl developed in 1988 in the version 2 of the USHCN data base. This exaggerated recent warming. Their global data base is a mess thanks to Peterson and Parker and major holes in the data. Steve Mcintyre has clearly shown the flaws in the studies by NCDC’s Tom Peterson (paper here) and the UK Hadley Center’s David Parker (paper here). Roger Pielke Sr. has done likewise on Climate Science numerous times including here . These studies have been used as excuses to minimize urban and local adjustments in the global data bases and support the politically correct warming. Also a recent paper in Nature showed how improper analysis of global sea surface temperatures occurred based on incorrect assumptions about the timing of a switchover from buckets to ship intake measurements. It was covered here. NOAA however deserves credit for the implementation of the 3000 global diving buoys that will provide better assessments of global ocean heat content, like the satellites a better way to assess climate change.

There is no acknowledgement of the need to address global data base deficiencies in the NOAA proposal. Nor is there any mention of other climate factors like the sun or ocean cycles (short-term like ENSO and longer term multidecadal like PDO and AMO). Like the some other foreign climate centers, they show they would focus on greenhouse forcing, which is now almost on a daily basis becoming discredited.

I see no need for a new multi million or billion dollar National Climate Service. I think they should focus existing centers like NCDC and CPC on developing improved methods for assessing accurate national and global climate changes, including a reconsideration of the possible roles of other factors like urbanization, land use changes, the sun and oceans in past and future climate change. See pdf of this blog with links here.