Is GW a hoax perpetuated by scientists?

That probably won't get too many thanks.

 

So, global temperature keeps pace with inflation but shows volatility around recessions?

 

How many ways can we critique that?

1) No, I think we should focus our science spending on items that aren't vitally important to our national interests. (Google "UCAR Drought", look at the first site, and think about corn yields).

2) Did somebody really think they had shown something here? There is no vertical scale for either line. That means you have complete freedom as to the slope and vertical placement of the line. You can make any two upward sloping lines match, just like this.

3) Given that, why didn't they make these match even more closely? Did somebody lack the Excel skills, or did they think this looked better?

4) How many things can you get wrong/mislabel or otherwise screw up on a single graph? 4.1) It's global temperature anomaly, not global temperature. I sure as sh*t hope the global temperature is not 0.13 degrees C. 4.2) The temperature series matches nothing I've ever seen -- per NASA (or very similar, NOAA), 2010 is warmest, 2005 second, 1998 third warmest year on record. 4.3) The NSF budget is actually in the $billions, so whatever these figures are, they aren't the NSF R&D budget. 4.4) I'll at least give them credit for not doing what the real guano-brains do, and throw in the cost of all US weather satellites as part of the budget for "global warming". And NSF funding is not the total of US funding in this research area. So they misunderestimated the total in any case.

 

I took it as a joke implying that the NSF caused the increase in temps...

 

I thought it was caused by the global decline in pirates? If it weren't for Somalia we would be in real trouble.

Tom

 

Over $100 billion spent to bribe scientists to come up with proof of CO2 global warming (over the past 20 years).
Money lobbied for by none other than Ken Lay and Al Gore.Ken Lay, the biggest thief in American history ,designs a funding system that spends $100 BILLION (so far) to prove global warming.)
$0.00 if you have a study which disproves global warming.
Care to share what percentage of $100+ billion was spent on satellites.
BTW 1998 was hottest recent year.Temps have flatlined since then ,despite rising CO2 levels.
There is no correlation between CO2 and temp .

 

I knew it was a joke when you referred to $millions.The Ken Lay $100BILLIONS is not so funny.

 

It's not just 'global warming' or temperature, it's a whole host of indicators which I'm not going to attempt to explain. You can look it up on EPA or others websites.

Really, what would be the motive for two guys to waste $100B ?

Tell ya what, if I have a choice between listening to large organizations - EPA, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, EIA, etc.... and some ding-dong naysayers with special interests, well , you get the picture.

 

If you can show me how that "$100+ billion" figure was constructed, I'll try to parse out what fraction was for satellites. If there's enough factual information that I can tell where the figure came from.

Otherwise, I'll point out two things.

1) The outcome of a study isn't known until it's done. By itself, that makes it hard to fund or fail to fund studies, based on what they are going to "prove" or "disprove". Certainly tough to call it correctly down to three significant digits ($0.00).

As of a month ago or so, you seemed convinced that cosmic rays were the cause of warming. So, by your logic, $0.00 should be invested in research in cosmic rays and climate. Yet, surely you read the recently published, federally-funded laboratory study demonstrating the impact of cosmic rays on clouds (formation of condensation nucleii). Described briefly here: RealClimate: Cosmic rays and clouds: Potential mechanisms So, not only did the Feds fund a study to "disprove" global warming, they funded it for what I believe is your current favorite alternative explanation.

2) In the same vein, you are only able to "disprove global warming" by looking at the short-term correlation between C02 and temperature by using data whose collection is paid for out of that "$100+ billion". The fact that scientists don't take that argument seriously just means that the argument is wrong. It doesn't mean that the Feds could have pro-actively cut off funding ahead of any fall in temperature.

3) Here's the way the temperatures look by the NASA GISS series:



4) The satellite data show a huge spike for the 1998 El Nino. I actually got a decent explanation for that, via comments on RealClimate. The satellite data tend to be more volatile because of amplification of temperature changes in the middle atmosphere. Basically, in the tropics, as temperatures increase, it warms the middle atmosphere (cloud top level) more than it does the surface, due to increased transport of heat via water vapor. Because the satellites don't actually measure surface temperatures, but instead measure the average temperature through the thickness of the atmosphere, they pick that up as part of the lower-tropospheric-temperature series that gets published as either of the satellite-based temperature series.

I have no way of knowing whether that explanation is in fact correct, but it seemed plausible, and it also seems to be the reason that people who really know the data are not all that concerned about the additional volatility that the satellite data show relative to the ground-based-thermometer data.

More to the point, we all know that in the short run there are many factors that have a significant impact on global average temperature. These include the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic eruptions (which tend to cool, due to aerosols), and variations in the extent to which the ocean pulls hot water down to lower depths versus keeping it on the surface, the single most important of which is the El Nino/La Nina cycle.

So the observed temperature trends tend to be quite jagged.

Here's what's interesting. The interesting part is that a recently published study started from the raw temperature data and removed the influence of solar cycle, volcanoes, and El Nino. Once you do that, a) the satellite and ground based series line up much better, and b) what's left is very much more like a smooth upward trend.

There's a nice description here:
The Real Global Warming Signal | Open Mind

Raw data (note the 1998 El Nino spike in the satellite series):



Here's the same series, after removing the effect of solar cycle, volcanoes, and ENSO (El Nino/La Nina).



Ignore the steeper slope on the adjusted series. (At least they did put values on the Y axis.) The point here is that even a little bit of attention to the other, well-known major drivers of short-term fluctuations in global temperature goes as long way toward showing the underlying long-term trend.

My apology to the OP, I realize you just wanted to show a silly thing, but this is a good opportunity to show the results of a fairly interesting recent study. I'm done.

 

BTW per inflation calculator, "[SIZE=+1]What cost $69.8 in 1993 would cost $102.34 in 2009.[/SIZE]"
The Inflation Calculator

this does not take into consideration that cost of R&D equipment and educational cost inflation were progressing at much higher rate.

 

I knew it was. However, Mojo's posts are more funny since he really does believe Climatologists drive from their mansions in there chauffeur-driven Bentleys to the lavish University-funded labs (as opposed to those poor, poor petroleum companies who can barely afford to pay their researchers who are finding THE TRUTH).

 

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Federal Climate Change Programs

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

 

The CBO sources show $100B, over 12 years, for climate and energy research. That includes the kitchen sink, e.g., nuclear power research. Climate research, a.k.a. "bribing scientists", is a small portion of that, as the graph and accompanying report clearly showed and discussed.



In terms of funding of climate research, here's what the CBO report says, page 7, emphasis mine:

"Climate Science. Federal climate science research focuses
on broadening fundamental scientific understanding of
climate change and on gathering data to monitor physical
processes. Although the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of the Department of
Commerce chairs the coordinating committee for the
program, the bulk of the funding goes to NASA.
Adjusted for inflation, funding for climate science programs
changed little from 1998 to 2009; in fact, at
$2.0 billion, the 2009 appropriations were below the
1998 amounts in 2009 dollars (see Table 3). NASA’s
efforts have been dominated by the design, development,
and procurement of satellites engaged in the observation
of the planet and its atmosphere and the analysis of the
data that those satellites collect."

If you add the numbers in Table 3, you find the following. For the 12 years shown (1998 2009),
Total funding was $25.4B
Funding for NASA was $15.8B.

So, Federal funding for climate research is (and has been, look at the table) about $2B/year. Of that, most goes to NASA, and per the description, NASAs spending is dominated by satellites.

Ex-NASA, climate research funding as of 2009 was less than $1B/year. At least according to this source. Or maybe $3 per capita for every US resident.

 

I wonder if we could have a chart of say the tobacco institute funders bribing scientists, versus say GE or enron or governments bribing warming scientists. My guess is more bribes on the later But then we get the koch brothers and gates foundation bribing legitimate scientists at B.E.S.T., unlike those tobacco institute ones.

The best way to combat global warming is to fund pirates as been shown many times.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I understand you may not believe this because of prejudice against these scientist's religion. But that the data speaks for itself.

 

I have no need to get drawn into this and haven't made up my mind about global warming, but you must yourself agree that your above statement is a joke.

We recently had a very well known Professor kicked out of his office because he had invented his own studies including data of his supposed testsubjects. One of his better claims (that eventually cost him his reputation) was that meateaters are more aggressive than vegetarians.

I dare to say he knew exactly what the outcome of his study was going to be before he started, and at least 95% of all studies have an expectation of what will be found.
In a perfect world, these expectations should not color the endresult, but our world is not perfect.

Shall we simply stop screwing and lower the amount of people on this earth? This should be priority one, two, three, four and five through thirtysix for this whole planet and everyone on it. EVERYTHING ELSE CAN WAIT, including the humongous pressure the average American puts on the worlds resources compared to the rest of the world.