How Can Climate Scientists Spend So Much Money?

[Tinkerbell in Texas]

How can climate scientists spend so much money? ClimateQuotes.com

Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget
NOAA $437 Million
NSF $480 Million
NASA $438.1 Million
DOE $627 Million
DOI $171 Million
EPA $169 Million
USDA $159 Million

US Federal government spending on climate change research in 2011

Until a few days ago I knew that the US government spent an excessive amount of taxpayer money on climate change research. It was just a general notion; I had read occasional articles showing the funding of certain agencies like NASA but I didn't know many specifics. Then on New Years Day, I wrote a very quick article where I randomly picked a document from a Google search showing funding for climate change. The numbers astonished me. I decided to take a closer look.

The document is the The American Association for the Advancement of Science's report:

AAAS REPORT XXXV

RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
FY 2011

The entire report is here, but I am only looking at chapter 15 which is here. The report is basically a snapshot of US Federal spending on research, including budgets for 2011 and how these numbers compare to previous years. The chapter on climate change is short and easy to read. It shows that all US agencies that conduct climate change research are expected to have larger budgets for 2011. Remember, these numbers are not set in stone, but they will not be drastically different from the actual numbers. I also need to make a caveat. Just because this funding has been labeled 'climate change research' does not mean it is necessarily not linked to another field as well. For example, some of the costs associated are for satellites, which are important in more than just climate research. This is not entirely frivolous spending. Even so, the numbers are staggering. Let's look at some agencies and their budgets.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

NOAA’s total budget request is $5.6 billion, which would be an increase of 17.0 percent. Of this, $437 million would be for climate research funding, which is an increase of $77 million.

$437 million spent on climate change research in one year, in one agency. Here's another:

National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF would receive $7.4 billion in FY 2011, an increase of 8 percent relative to the FY 2010 appropriation. The request includes $370 million under the USGCRP framework, which is an increase of 16.0 percent. The Geosciences Directorate would receive $955 million (a 7.4 percent increase) in FY 2011 with $480 million going to Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program would receive $765.5 million. This is intended to promote discoveries and capability needed to inform societal actions in ways that contribute to environmental and economic sustainability. NSF’s request also includes $19 million for RE-ENERGYSE, a joint program with the Department of Energy intended to promote education in clean energy research. An additional $10 million would fund Climate Change Education, which seeks to increase understanding of climate among the next generation of Americans.
$480 million here, $765.5 million there, throw in another $10 million for climate education and you've got $1.25 billion dollars spent on climate change research just at the NSF, just in ONE YEAR! Next is NASA:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA’s FY 2011 budget request is $19.0 billion. NASA Earth Science is a relatively small fraction of this total, $1.8 billion or 9.5 percent, but would increase substantially relative to the FY 2010 appropriation (up 26.8 percent). NASA Earth Science funds climate change R&D through several programs. Two of particular note are Earth Science Research, which would receive $438.1 million (an increase of 14 percent)...

It seems like the $450 million mark is a common budget for climate research among these agencies. NOAA's funding, the NSF's atmospheric science funding, and NASA's Earth Science research are all around $450 million. It may be an interesting coincidence. Next is the Department of Energy:

Department of Energy (DOE).

The President’s budget request for DOE in FY 2011 is $28.4 billion. This includes $4.6 billion for R&D in the Office of Science (an increase of 3.8 percent), and $2.4 billion for energy R&D (an increase of 6.8 percent). Within the Office of Science, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), which supports basic research in atmospheric sciences, terrestrial ecosystems and climate modeling, would receive $627 million (an increase of 3.8 percent). BER’s request includes $28.6 million for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES) program, which examines the impact of climate change on biological systems and land-surface carbon cycle feedbacks to climate change.
$627 million taken from a taxpayer or borrowed from a future taxpayer, spent in one year. Next the Department of the Interior:

Department of the Interior (DOI).

DOI requests $171 million (an increase of 26.0 percent) for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative, which seeks to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and implement coping strategies. Of this, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) would receive $77.9 million for climate science (an increase of 15.5 percent).

How many jobs could be created in 2011 if $171 million were still in the hands of US taxpayers, instead of being spent on climate studies which have been done many times before? Studying areas vulnerable to climate change? That's already been done by every agency, twice. Next is the EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

EPA requests $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (an increase of 1 percent). Of this, $43.5 million is new funding for regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act. EPA requests $22 million for its Global Change Research Program, which assesses the impacts of global change on air and water quality, ecosystems, human health, and socioeconomic systems in the United States with a primary goal of promoting adaptation efforts.
I don't even understand what this means. How does giving the EPA $169 million reduce emissions? Also, does it really cost $43.5 million a year (more) to regulate greenhouse gases? Lastly, the USDA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

USDA requests $159 million for climate change research, an increase of 42.0 percent, and $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41.0 percent. USDA’s climate change efforts (and those of the U.S. Forest Service which is part of USDA) center on helping farmers and land owners adapt to climate change impacts (e.g., enhanced fire stress, insect outbreaks, droughts, floods, and heat stress) and promoting carbon storage in soils and forests.

A 42% increase in climate change research? $159 million spent in a single year, by the USDA? Crop yields are up! CO2 helps crops! Imagine spending $159 million in 2011 to research things that actually help people.

The amount of money being spent on climate change research this year is astounding. I urge you to read the document yourself. Here is the question to take away: what are we getting for the billions of dollars we've spent? When 2011 is over will we look back at the published research and be satisfied with how our billions have been spent? This type of spending has occurred for some time, and what do we have to show for it? Multiple federal agencies having multi-hundred million dollar budgets in the same (controversial) field is wasteful. Let's make sure 2011 is the last year these budgets increase.

There ya go!! Some prime examples of areas we can cut the budget.

[Chris Fowler]

Still looking for facts to support the hypothesis they've been spending billions on.

[Tinkerbell in Texas]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Still looking for facts to support the hypothesis they've been spending billions on.

facts???? what're they???

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell in Texas

facts???? what're they???

Believe me .... in a couple of months when it's 99 degrees by 11 am .... the anti-algorians will disappear ... and it will be a moot point all the way to this time next year ...

[Chris Fowler]

Really? Seems the man-made climate-change people shut up all winter (or love to use the term "weather") while those of us smart enough to notice the historical record are willing to talk about it year round...

[Tinkerbell in Texas]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Believe me .... in a couple of months when it's 99 degrees by 11 am .... the anti-algorians will disappear ... and it will be a moot point all the way to this time next year ...

you mean in August when it's normally that hot that time of year and all the warministas will be whining again???
BTW, saved for use later.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Really? Seems the man-made climate-change people shut up all winter (or love to use the term "weather") while those of us smart enough to notice the historical record are willing to talk about it year round...

The historical record shows 2010 to be the warmest year on record ... 2009 was the warmest before that ... this year it wasn't until a month ago that it was cold enough for the anti-algorians to emerge and bitch about the algorians ... as opposed to say the usual last day of september ... never fails ...

[Tinkerbell in Texas]

Originally Posted by Exotix

The historical record shows 2010 to be the warmest year on record ... 2009 was the warmest before that ... this year it wasn't until a month ago that it was cold enough for the anti-algorians to emrge and bitch about the algorians ...

no matter how much you want 2010 to be the warmest year on record, your wishing doesn't make it so.

UAH Global Temperature anomaly published, 1998 still warmest year in the UAH satellite record | Watts Up With That?

[Chris Fowler]

It's also so convenient that the "record" ignores the times this world has been much hotter and much colder in favor of blaming humans.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell in Texas

no matter how much you want 2010 to be the warmest year on record, your wishing doesn't make it so.

UAH Global Temperature anomaly published, 1998 still warmest year in the UAH satellite record | Watts Up With That?

I remember 1998 ... it was 113 degrees in Sacramento for months during the summer ...

Sacramemto is a rather unique Global Warming indicator now becuse of it's geographic location in the central California Valley as well as it's high air pollution index that now traps atmospheric toxins as well as it's affect from such 5-10 year cycles of El Ninos & El Ninas as well as it location with regards to the jet stream which when it moves north or south and brings with it extreme hots and colds and is the main reason we have normal or strange seasons ...

[Tinkerbell in Texas]

Originally Posted by Exotix

I remember 1998 ... it was 113 degrees in Sacramento for months during the summer ...

Sacramemto is a rather unique Global Warming indicator now becuse of it's geographic location in the central California Valley as well as it's high air pollution index that now traps atmospheric toxins as well as it's affect from such 5-10 year cycles of El Ninos & El Ninas as well as it location with regards to the jet stream which when it moves north or south and brings with it extreme hots and colds and is the main reason we have normal or strange seasons ...

that's called "weather". you're welcome.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell in Texas

that's called "weather". you're welcome.

Depends ... there's not too many ski lifts in Texas so this suggests that global cooling can't be proved either ....

[Tinkerbell in Texas]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Depends ... there's not too many ski lifts in Texas so this suggests that global cooling can't be proved either ....

no exotix, it doesn't depend. It's WEATHER. Period.

[ChasC5]

What does War Cost?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell in Texas

no exotix, it doesn't depend. It's WEATHER. Period.

Trick is, as the years go by, weather to wear depends or not......

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell in Texas

no exotix, it doesn't depend. It's WEATHER. Period.

You got me there ... I'm glad you're a member here so to give us periodic updates all through 2011 ... so we can get a better idea on how historic patterns may or may not emerge and gives us indications and various proofs we need to formulate Global Warming facts and faux as they may or may not affect U.S. govt. expenditures in terms of Cap & Trade, drilling in ANWR, terrorist funding via Big Oil and other indices such as the Northwest passage opening up again so we can go to war with Canada over oil & mineral rights ... and host of other affects and effects that The Global Warming issues presents itself as (especially job creation) ... as dynamic science(s) and humanity and it's contribution too ...

[mrvette]

THE FACTS are that mankind as NO affect on weather/climate/global anything...the planet is just toooooooooooooooooooooooooo large.....

do a lower lever flyover some time, you find 50 billion miles of GREEN and maybe 1% is altered due to mankind.....

and FOR that fact we get to suffer setting back 200 years of POSITIVE civilization on account of a few crybabies looking after some smelly darting fish or other....