ORH_wxman Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 That would make sense then....however....what about UHI? To me thats a huge influence on temps at certain stations. Is there anything taken into account for that? UHI is essentially meaningless on a global scale...it has a bigger influence in the U.S., but it has been accounted for in the homogenized data. When a city like Phoenix sets a new monthly temp record, the NWS will always keep it as is, but when calculating the statewide temps or national temps, that Phoenix data will get adjusted. (i.e., if they record an average temp of 93F this June, it's share in the average will probably get adjusted back down to something like 84F to take into account the monster UHI that has occurred at that specific site) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Honestly never understood the uproar over UHI. Its not CO2, but it is anthropogenic. The idea that anthropogenic warming isn't anthropogenic because its caused by another anthropogenic factor is strange to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Honestly never understood the uproar over UHI. Its not CO2, but it is anthropogenic. The idea that anthropogenic warming isn't anthropogenic because its caused by another anthropogenic factor is strange to me. Most of the long term stations started in population centers, those areas have built up and give a false representation of warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Honestly never understood the uproar over UHI. Its not CO2, but it is anthropogenic. The idea that anthropogenic warming isn't anthropogenic because its caused by another anthropogenic factor is strange to me. Because it misrepresents global warming. Urbanized centers with UHI represent maybe .1% of the earth's surface area. Fortunately, most stations used don't have UHI, or the UHI is removed by calibrating to other nearby available stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 28, 2015 Author Share Posted April 28, 2015 I have deep reservations for an article that iimmediately claimes scientists have "fiddled" the numbers even before this "study" releases its results. I stopped reading when they call scientists who find anthropological climate change occurring "believers." The Global Warming Foundation is one of the most vocal climate skeptic groups in the UK with shady funding sources. You call scientists that are skeptical "deniers". Your side of the argument started this name calling. I think "believer" is a good name because the scientific evidence for significant global warming from CO2 increases is flimsy at best. Those that swear by it, are "believers". And also those that adjust data get millions of dollars in funding..... That is "shady" money too because it will stop if the problem is not that bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 And also those that adjust data get millions of dollars in funding..... That is "shady" money too because it will stop if the problem is not that bad.... Source, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 28, 2015 Author Share Posted April 28, 2015 Source, please. Oh come on, every university gets tons of money for climate change research from the federal government grants....taxpayers...you and I. Billions of dollars in the last 25+ years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Oh come on, every university gets tons of money for climate change research from the federal government grants....taxpayers...you and I. Billions of dollars in the last 25+ years.... So, if it weren't for AGW then nobody would be studying climate at all? I will also point out that you apparently have no proof that adjustments to climate records were made in exchange for money. If it is as widespread as you believe, then there should be ample evidence. Without that evidence, then your claim is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 28, 2015 Author Share Posted April 28, 2015 So, if it weren't for AGW then nobody would be studying climate at all? I will also point out that you apparently have no proof that adjustments to climate records were made in exchange for money. If it is as widespread as you believe, then there should be ample evidence. Without that evidence, then your claim is false. Global warming studies have taken climatology from an obscure poorly funded science to a major dominantly funded atmospheric science. More research goes into climate change than basic meteorological and storm-related research. Climate science in my opinion should be focusing on studying seasonal forecasting to benefit society the most and needs research money. But this global warming emphasis is wasting a lot of resources IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 More research goes into climate change than basic meteorological and storm-related research. Source, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Global warming is a hoax. Nothing to see here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 29, 2015 Author Share Posted April 29, 2015 Source, please. 85 billion dollars just in the U.S for climate change in 4 years see https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf I am still looking for weather research appropriations....but I believe it is less than 1 billion in 4 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 85 billion dollars just in the U.S for climate change in 4 years see https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf I am still looking for weather research appropriations....but I believe it is less than 1 billion in 4 years... Thank you for the link. Looking at Table 1 on page 8, it shows approximately 2.5 billion each year for US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). That's a total of approximately 10 billion over four years. How did you arrive at the 85 billion number? What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 29, 2015 Author Share Posted April 29, 2015 Thank you for the link. Looking at Table 1 on page 8, it shows approximately 2.5 billion each year for US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). That's a total of approximately 10 billion over four years. How did you arrive at the 85 billion number? What am I missing? Table 1 is all the money sum total spent on climate change....about 85 billion. 10 billion is research directly related. So 2.5 billion each year on climate change vs only 1 billion per year for the operations of the National Weather Service who directly protect life and property.....that's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 LOL speaking of "temperature adjustments" http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 UAH was the dataset that already had a cold bias lol. They are definitely trolling us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Table 1 is all the money sum total spent on climate change....about 85 billion. 10 billion is research directly related. So 2.5 billion each year on climate change vs only 1 billion per year for the operations of the National Weather Service who directly protect life and property.....that's just wrong. You know these numbers are chump change compared to the stuff lobbyists in Washington dish out every election cycle. The focus should always be in the private sector because this is where change will occur from how we do business to renewables. I certainly don't want and thus don't expect the government to solve this issue for me. Even so, it may not be feasible due to the international nature of AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 UAH was the dataset that already had a cold bias lol. They are definitely trolling us. UAH was the warmest of the satellite TLT datasets...it was RSS that ran much colder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 UAH was the warmest of the satellite TLT datasets...it was RSS that ran much colder. Just a simple question tho, is version 6 related to this? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Just a simple question tho, is version 6 related to this? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming That study focused on the mid-troposphere. Where RSS ran warmer than UAH. The typical anomalies and trend lines that people refer to on here though is the TLT data. UAH ran a lot warmer for TLT data in version 5.6. Version 6.0 isn't peer reviewed yet anyway. So we will have to wait until it is to really have much confidence in the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 29, 2015 Author Share Posted April 29, 2015 New version 6 beta of the UAH MSU dataset has been released.... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/ It is now in line with the RSS. Both datasets show significant cooling since 2010....like the CVSv2. Also no statistically significant warming since January 1997 (UAH) or December 1996 (RSS).... almost 19 years. These datasets both show a major pause in any warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 New version 6 beta of the UAH MSU dataset has been released.... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/ It is now in line with the RSS. Both datasets show significant cooling since 2010....like the CVSv2. Also no statistically significant warming since January 1997 (UAH) or December 1996 (RSS).... almost 19 years. These datasets both show a major pause in any warming. No neither of them are remotely similar to CFSv2.. are you really this obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Table 1 is all the money sum total spent on climate change....about 85 billion. 10 billion is research directly related. So 2.5 billion each year on climate change vs only 1 billion per year for the operations of the National Weather Service who directly protect life and property.....that's just wrong. The initial question was the difference in research dollars, not how much money it will take to combat climate change effects. Believe me, that's going to be much more than $85 billion if we don't stop contributing to the problem soon. I've done a little more digging into the US Global Change Research Program and according to this page here, it is really just a method of categorizing money spent within existing budgets for climate change research. This isn't a separate line item on the budget to dedicate dollars for climate change research. For example, NASA's budget for 2014 was $17.6B, of that amount, NASA self-reported that $1.4B was used for climate change research. I haven't yet found a document that shows which projects NASA is considering "climate change" research vs what they are considering "weather" research. I can easily see where there would be a large crossover in dollars for both types of research. For example, NASA could launch a satellite for weather forecasting purposes, but that daily data (for example) could then be archived and later used by climate researchers looking for trends. Was that satellite a "weather" satellite or a "climate change" satellite? What about surface temperature stations? Are those "climate change" or "weather" dollars? I don't think you have yet made a strong case that weather forecasting research is getting overlooked in favor of climate change research. Also, when you get a chance I would appreciate the link to the "$1B spent on weather forecasting research." Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 No neither of them are remotely similar to CFSv2.. are you really this obtuse? The trends are similar if you look. Basically you have 3 datasets showing cooling since 2010. RSS UAH and CFS2. Its only the sfc station datasets that show continued warming.... are u really that obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbs Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 The trends are similar if you look. Basically you have 3 datasets showing cooling since 2010. RSS UAH and CFS2. Its only the sfc station datasets that show continued warming.... are u really that obtuse? I can't find any source of a merged CFS and CFS2 series except WxBell. Here is the old CFS up to the end of 2010 vs the NCEP and Euro re-analyses through 2014. The other re-analyses do not show the recent cooling that the WxBell CFS/CFS2 series does. In addition CFS does not agree with the other re-analyses very well in 2010. So why use it - other than the fact that it is cooler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 So 2.5 billion each year on climate change vs only 1 billion per year for the operations of the National Weather Service who directly protect life and property.....that's just wrong. It looks like the House Science Committe agrees with you. House Science Committee guts NASA Earth sciences budget "Yesterday, by a party-line vote, Republicans in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology approved a budget authorization for NASA that would see continued spending on Orion and the Space Launch System but slash the agency's budget for Earth sciences. This vote follows the committee's decision to cut the NSF's geoscience budget..." "The bill comes a week after the same committee reauthorized the America COMPETES act, which includes funding for the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy. As at NASA, geoscience funding takes a hit, down 12 percent at the NSF, with environmental research from the DOE taking a 10 percent hit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.