NOAA has launched a new website at www.climate.gov, which provides access to NOAA’s climate services. This is billed as NOAA’s “Climate Services Portal” and has a number of interesting tools and resources.
A couple of quick questions that jump to mind, as we review the portal:
Antarctic Sea Ice. One question that immediately arises on the initial “Climate Change Dashboard” is why NOAA chose to include Arctic Sea Ice, but not Antarctic Sea Ice. It could be, of course, that they simply forgot to include it. I have (as no doubt have several others already) submitted a comment on their site, asking why they did not include Antarctic Sea Ice; so if they forgot to include it, they have now been reminded. Or it could be that it just didn’t fit in the Dashboard, although that seems a bit unlikely, as the home page is a scrolling page and part of the Dashboard is below the fold anyway. Or perhaps they chose not to include it because the Arctic gets more press and people are relatively uninterested in the Antarctic. However, this seems questionable, particularly given the regular press stories about Antarctica — all the calving glaciers and breaking ice shelves — and the recent work of Steig, et al. Finally, it could be that they fully intend to include the Antarctic Sea Ice, but just haven’t had time yet — after all it is a new site.
I am trying to think of other reasons they would include the Arctic Sea Ice but exclude the Antarctic Sea Ice, and the only other reason I can think of would not be a positive reflection on NOAA’s objectivity. Am I missing other possibilities?
Default Time Period. The Dashboard contains a cool feature that allows the user to slide the timeline bars to the left (earlier years) and to the right (later years). The default time period on the Dashboard is set at 1950-2000. There needs to be a default setting of some kind, so this, in itself, is not strange. However, I wonder why 1950-2000 was chosen. That default timeframe excludes the period leading up to the 1940’s — a period with a warming trend nearly identical to the more recent decades. The default timeframe also excludes the recent recovery of Arctic Sea Ice. With respect to temperatures, according to the NOAA chart, if you pull the temperatures out to 2009, they continue to climb or at least remain nearly as high as 1998, so lots of red in the chart. Thus, I don’t think they are trying to hide the 2000-2009 temperatures, as pulling the temperatures out to 2009 might make it look like even more warming.
On this one, I think the most likely explanation is that they simply picked a nice round number (1950-2000) as the default. I would recommend that they use the full time period as the default, to provide as much information as possible at the outset, but I don’t think anything nefarious is going on with the default time period.
[Update] A number of commenters at www.wattsupwiththat.com have indicated that the Dashboard may contain questionable or carefully selected data to emphasize a warming trend. Also, it appears that the incoming sunlight information is based on an outdated dataset.