Plus, the National Research Council has a long and detailed report on Severe Space Weather Events. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12507.html

Might be a good time for most of the drivers around here to learn how to read maps

Like others mentioned, GOCE and GRACE use pretty different technology (and are all, at this point, experiments). Also, give Germany some credit - GRACE is a joint US-German experiment. International partnerships are a pretty good way for the US to stretch its earth-observation dollar. See: http://science.nasa.gov/missions/grace/ I don't know much about the GOCE experiment, but GRACE's gravity information has been able to show things like ice cap thinning in Greenland, and the density attributable to large (water) aquifers elsewhere.

I think the answer to this is a qualified "yes." Climate data analysis is tough - it takes a long time to collect, coordinate, validate, calibrate - and ulimately analyze - climate data. And that's just to tell WHAT is happening, WHY is even harder. One of the things that the National Academies and the Government Accountability Office have found is that there isn't a "home" for climate, so efforts take place in a million different uncoordinated (Read: disorganized) places. If nothing else, the House hearing highlighted that fact. NOAA may not be the best place for a National Climate Office/Service, but they do already have the National Climate Data Center - and at least have the infastruture and operational (not R&D) enviornment to continue the studies. I'm glad a national effort is being discussed - if nothing else it would be good (and hopefully save us all some money) to group some of the climate-studying stovepipes together.

The source or sources (not just the content) is often what makes classified things classified. I can easily see a situation where someone would want a classified source OR analysis to confirm open source research. And yes, the level of the analyst where something gets created -will- have an impact on its classification.