H.R. 1030 (The Secret Science Bill)

[GMDino]

(07-19-2015, 09:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So now weather is climate?  I get confused as it seems to change based on the weather.  Pretty chilly summer here this year.

No weather is not climate. 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

Quote:NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?



Latest three month average temperature and precipitation anomalies for the United States.
Credits: NOAA
[/url]
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather. Today, children always hear stories from their parents and grandparents about how snow was always piled up to their waists as they trudged off to school. Children today in most areas of the country haven't experienced those kinds of dreadful snow-packed winters, except for the Northeastern U.S. in January 2005. The change in recent winter snows indicate that the climate has changed since their parents were young.

If summers seem hotter lately, then the recent climate may have changed. In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate.

In addition to long-term climate change, there are shorter term climate variations. This so-called climate variability can be represented by periodic or intermittent changes related to El Niño, La Niña, volcanic eruptions, or other changes in the Earth system.

What Weather Means 
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

Things That Make Up Our Weather
There are really a lot of components to weather. Weather includes sunshine, rain, cloud cover, winds, hail, snow, sleet, freezing rain, flooding, blizzards, ice storms, thunderstorms, steady rains from a cold front or warm front, excessive heat, heat waves and more.

In order to help people be prepared to face all of these, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS), the lead forecasting outlet for the nation's weather, has over 25 different types of warnings, statements or watches that they issue. Some of the reports NWS issues are: Flash Flood Watches and Warnings, Severe Thunderstorm Watches and Warnings, Blizzard Warnings, Snow Advisories, Winter Storm Watches and Warnings, Dense Fog Advisory, Fire Weather Watch, Tornado Watches and Warnings, Hurricane Watches and Warnings. They also provide Special Weather Statements and Short and Long Term Forecasts.

NWS also issues a lot of notices concerning marine weather for boaters and others who dwell or are staying near shorelines. They include: Coastal Flood Watches and Warnings, Flood Watches and Warnings, High Wind Warnings, Wind Advisories, Gale Warnings, High Surf Advisories, Heavy Freezing Spray Warnings, Small Craft Advisories, Marine Weather Statements, Freezing Fog Advisories, Coastal Flood Watches, Flood Statements, Coastal Flood Statement.

Who is the National Weather Service?
According to their mission statement, "The National Weather Service provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community."

To do their job, the NWS uses radar on the ground and images from orbiting satellites with a continual eye on Earth. They use reports from a large national network of weather reporting stations, and they launch balloons in the air to measure air temperature, air pressure, wind, and humidity. They put all this data into various computer models to give them weather forecasts. NWS also broadcasts all of their weather reports on special NOAA weather radio, and posts them immediately on their Interactive Weather Information Network website at: http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/graphicsversion/bigmain.html.
 
What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate.

Why Study Climate?
The reason studying climate and a changing climate is important, is that will affect people around the world. Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea levels, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks and National Forests may be permanently altered.

An example of a Monthly Mean Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) product produced from NOAA polar-orbiter satellite data, which is frequently used to study global climate change.
Credits: NOAA


The National Academy of Sciences, a lead scientific body in the U.S., determined that the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Yet, there is still some debate about the role of natural cycles and processes.

Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertanties exist about exactly how Earth's climate responds to them. According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (http://www.climatescience.gov), factors such as aerosols, land use change and others may play important roles in climate change, but their influence is highly uncertain at the present time.

Who Studies Climate Change?
Modern climate prediction started back in the late 1700s with Thomas Jefferson and continues to be studied around the world today.

At the national level, the U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates the world's most extensive research effort on climate change. In addition, NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies are actively engaging the private sector, states, and localities in partnerships based on a win-win philosophy and aimed at addressing the challenge of global warming while, at the same time, strengthening the economy. Many university and private scientists also study climate change.

What is the U.S. Global Change Research Program?
The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was created in 1989 as a high-priority national research program to address key uncertainties about changes in the Earth's global environmental system, both natural and human-induced; to monitor, understand, and predict global change; and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making.

Since its inception, the USGCRP has strengthened research on global environmental change and fostered insight into the processes and interactions of the Earth system, including the atmosphere, oceans, land, frozen regions, plants and animals, and human societies. The USGCRP was codified by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The basic rationale for establishing the program was that the issues of global change are so complex and wide-ranging that they extend beyond the mission, resources, and expertise of any single agency, requiring instead the integrated efforts of several agencies.

Some Federal Agencies Studying Climate 
In the 1980s the National Weather Service established the Climate Prediction Center (CPC), known at the time as the Climate Analysis Center (CAC). The CPC is best known for its United States climate forecasts based on El Niño and La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific.
 

Image Above: The operational SST anomaly charts are useful in assessing ENSO (El Niño - Southern Oscillation) development, monitoring hurricane "wake" cooling, and even major shifts in coastal upwelling.
Credits: NOAA
[url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html]
CPC was established to give short-term climate prediction a home in NOAA. CPC's products are operational predictions or forecasts of how climate may change and includes real-time monitoring of climate. They cover the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere, extending into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). Climate prediction is very useful in various industries, including agriculture, energy, transportation, water resources, and health.

NASA has been using satellites to study Earth's changing climate. Thanks to satellite and computer model technology, NASA has been able to calculate actual surface temperatures around the world and measure how they've been warming. To accomplish the calculations, the satellites actually measure the Sun's radiation reflected and absorbed by the land and oceans.NASA satellites keep eyes on the ozone hole, El Nino's warm waters in the eastern Pacific, volcanoes, melting ice sheets and glaciers, changes in global wind and pressure systems and much more.

At the global level, countries around the world have expressed a firm commitment to strengthening international responses to the risks of climate change. The U.S. is working to strengthen international action and broaden participation under the support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Today, scientists around the world continue to try and solve the puzzle of climate change by working with satellites, other tools and computer models that simulate and predict the Earth's conditions.

[*michaelsean*]

Ok so is my cooler spring and summer indicitive of a cooler climate?

Since the sun is going to be reducing its energy should we up our output of greenhouse gases?

[SunsetBengal]

Dino, that 45 year "study" is just a blip in time, when it comes to changes of the Earth..

[GMDino]

(07-19-2015, 09:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok so is my cooler spring and summer indicitive of a cooler climate?

Since the sun is going to be reducing its energy should we up our output of greenhouse gases?

(07-19-2015, 09:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Dino, that 45 year "study" is just a blip in time, when it comes to changes of the Earth..

And you still think the general public needs to see the studies so we can decide if we want to fund changes.  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2015, 10:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: And you still think the general public needs to see the studies so we can decide if we want to fund changes.  

I didnt say a word either way.  Im just wondering if we should counteract the reduction in the release of the sun's energy.  Since we have that ability and all.

And maybe I read it wrong, but I didn't see it as deciding, but just giving the information. Are people really against having non-national security information available? You guys are the worst-liberals-ever.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-19-2015, 10:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: And you still think the general public needs to see the studies so we can decide if we want to fund changes.  

We are in serious debt. We need to stop funding and start living within our means.

As far as transparency .... It's never a bad thing. Especially when obama is cutting deals behind our backs to the UN.

[fredtoast]

Okay, let me see if i have this right


The United States had a looong history of industries destroying our environment and dumping poison into our water and air. It was becoming such a serious heath issue that we formed the EPA to try and stop industries from killing all of us in the name of profit. And it has worked very well. In fact we have a perfect example of what life would be like without the EPA by looking at China.

But now the EPA is considered the "bad guy" by some people. And the theory these people put out to back up their claim is that the government really wants to destroy itself. The people in power who mainly stay in power by promoting a strong economy want to hurt our economy for no reason at all. We are asked to just ignore history and what is happening in China and instead accept the fairy tale that for some reason the people in power want to ruin our economy so that they will be sure to get kicked out of office and lose their power.

Seriously, people?

[*Nately120*]

Can't we just give all the right-wingers a pile of printouts and spreadsheets of random numbers and line graphs, tell them that it's all that environmental science stuff, let them look at it and furrow their brows and say "This is BS devil talk straight from hell and Jesus is a-commin' to carry us home" and be done with it?

[StLucieBengal]

Maybe it's not thaf we want zero EPA. But maybe less of the bs regulation that's doing nothing more than crushing local economies to fund political friends in tax payer money for "green" energy.

[SunsetBengal]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/

Quote:Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres – NASA and NOAA – have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century “global warming”.

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show “climate change” before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted – ie fabricated by computer models –  20th century ‘global warming’ suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted – even by climate activists like NASA’s James Hansen – that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:

Quote:In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists’ fashionable “global warming” narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up – where before they looked either flat or declining.
But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency’s heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century – far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s.
These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia.

The fact that supposedly reputable scientists can make these dishonest adjustments and get away with it is, notes long-time sceptic Christopher Booker, one of the more remarkable anomalies of the great climate change scam.

Quote:When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2015, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe it's not thaf we want zero EPA.   But maybe less of the bs regulation that's doing nothing more than crushing local economies to fund political friends in tax payer money for "green" energy.

Look at China and tell me there is no purpose for green energy other than to fund "political friends".

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2015, 06:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/

Read this to get the details of what happened.

http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html

Climate change skeptics are the ones trying to manipulate the data.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-22-2015, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Read this to get the details of what happened.

http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html

Climate change skeptics are the ones trying to manipulate the data.

C'mon man, "estimates" made from computer models do not equal real science..

Just like putting whatever they feel for areas that are inaccessible to them, like Siberia..

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2015, 07:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: C'mon man, "estimates" made from computer models do not equal real science..

Just like putting whatever they feel for areas that are inaccessible to them, like Siberia..

You need to read the article I posted.  

What does the temperature in Siberia have to do with the average US temperature discussed in the article you linked?

Educate yourself before you make any more comments.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-22-2015, 07:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Look at China and tell me there is no purpose for green energy other than to fund "political friends".

Sure there have never been any payoffs in the name of green energy. Sure nice to be a bundler for your president.

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
SpectraWatt ($500,000)
Solyndra ($535 million)
Beacon Power ($43 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)
A123 Systems ($279 million)
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)
Range Fuels ($80 million)
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

[SunsetBengal]

Look's like God is about to punish the Left coast..

http://allnewspipeline.com/Scientists_Grave_Warning_Any_Day_Now.php

Read as "tongue in cheek"

[*michaelsean*]

(07-22-2015, 08:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure there have never been any payoffs in the name of green energy.   Sure nice to be a bundler for your president.

   Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
   SpectraWatt ($500,000)
   Solyndra ($535 million)
   Beacon Power ($43 million)
   Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
   SunPower ($1.2 billion)
   First Solar ($1.46 billion)
   Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
   EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
   Amonix ($5.9 million)
   Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
   Abound Solar ($400 million)
   A123 Systems ($279 million)
   Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)
   Johnson Controls ($299 million)
   Schneider Electric ($86 million)
   Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
   ECOtality ($126.2 million)
   Raser Technologies ($33 million)
   Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)
   Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)
   Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)
   Range Fuels ($80 million)
   Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)
   Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)
   Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)
   GreenVolts ($500,000)
   Vestas ($50 million)
   LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
   Nordic Windpower ($16 million)
   Navistar ($39 million)
   Satcon ($3 million)
   Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)
   Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Look at all that corporate welfare.

[fredtoast]

(07-22-2015, 08:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sure there have never been any payoffs in the name of green energy.   Sure nice to be a bundler for your president.

   Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
   SpectraWatt ($500,000)
   Solyndra ($535 million)
   Beacon Power ($43 million)
   Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
   SunPower ($1.2 billion)
   First Solar ($1.46 billion)
   Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
   EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
   Amonix ($5.9 million)
   Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
   Abound Solar ($400 million)
   A123 Systems ($279 million)
   Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)
   Johnson Controls ($299 million)
   Schneider Electric ($86 million)
   Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
   ECOtality ($126.2 million)
   Raser Technologies ($33 million)
   Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)
   Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)
   Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)
   Range Fuels ($80 million)
   Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)
   Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)
   Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)
   GreenVolts ($500,000)
   Vestas ($50 million)
   LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
   Nordic Windpower ($16 million)
   Navistar ($39 million)
   Satcon ($3 million)
   Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)
   Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

What does any of this have to do with my comment that you quoted?

Plus where did you get this list.  I am pretty sure that none of this has anything to do with the EPA.

So why did you even post this in this thread?

[StLucieBengal]

(07-23-2015, 08:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What does any of this have to do with my comment that you quoted?

Plus where did you get this list.  I am pretty sure that none of this has anything to do with the EPA.

So why did you even post this in this thread?

List of failed Green companies that the obama administration had given government handouts. These were bundlers for obama and after they got their money... They declared bankruptcy and took the money and ran. Green energy is a boon doggle for bundlers

[fredtoast]

(07-23-2015, 08:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: List of failed Green companies that the obama administration had given government handouts.   These were bundlers for obama and after they got their money... They declared bankruptcy and took the money and ran.      Green energy is a boon doggle for bundlers

Not all of those companies filed bankruptcy. As far as I know Johnson Controls is a successful Fortune 500 company. But even if they did that does not mean that green energy is just a boondoggle for "bundlers" (what are bundlers?). This list screams of "right-wing propaganda". Please post a link to where you found it.

The US government has also given tax breaks and loans to fossil fuel companies that have filed for bankruptcy.  Does that mean the fossil fuel industry is a boondoggle also?

None of this has anything to do with the comment I made about the need for clean energy and the value of the EPA.