US DOE apparently funded CRU millions, not $200K as reported

Stop the funding of glowbull warming/anthropogenic greenhouse gas climate change for a while.
Money would be better spent on volcano monitoring. There’s where you will find the real answers to warmings and coolings. Study also needs to be done on links of volcanic activity and solar activity. It sure looks to me like the lower the solar maximums and the deeper the minima, the more eruption volume. The reverse when the maximum and minimum are higher… less eruption volume.
Some of these gasses tear ozone up and change the characteristics of the atmosphere, such as reflectivity and humidity for examples.

Gentlemen
It appears that I was partially in error. Specifically I was wrong to state that that the $1.5-1.7 million was a FY 2007-2008 expenditure. These were cumulative year expenditures, not a single year expenditure. Mr. Richard Tol is credited for setting me straight and is to be credited for his fine attention to detail. To the extent my error has been been misleading, I apologize.
However, it also appears that the UEA’s cumulative figures are not accurate in the May 7, 2008, e-mail. Roughly $200 K appears to be missing from the UEA figures. (I am NOT suggesting fraud – I’ll get to this).
Richard’s comment first. In Richard’s comment of July 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm (see above), Richard was quite right to point out that it is not clear that the $1.5-1.7 million figure was a single year 2007/2008 expenditure. Late this afternoon I researched further, based on the input and additioal resources provided by the fine contributors above. Upon the collection of additional facts, It’s clear I misinterpreted the May 7, 2008, e-mail.
I had interpreted the words :
” Received to date 1,589,632.00
2007/08″
To mean the UEA’s $1,589,632 figure was a 2007/2008 expenditure. It now clearer that it was not and that this was likely a FY 1998-2006 cumulative expenditure. More on the cumulative figure later – there is a problem with it.
The clue to this being a multi-year cumulative figure is in the DOE instructions at the far bottom of the May 7, 2008, e-mail thread which reads:
xxxxx
A. Providing Cumulative Cost Data:
For most of the awards administered by the Office of Science – Chicago Office, there is
a financial reporting requirement to submit cost data on the Financial Status Report
(SF-269) at the end of the project period. Currently, there is no requirement for you
to submit cost data on a more frequent basis. However, in order to achieve our goal of
improving the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of our financial information, the
Departments external independent auditors have insisted that we confirm cumulative cost balances with Grantees that have received significant financial assistance monies at least annually. For each grant award listed, we request that you provide the following….:
1.Cumulative actual Cost through March 31, 2008
(from inception of the award):
xxxxx
I had missed the words “from the inception of the award” and had jumped to the conclusion that this was a cumulative FY 2008 figure – believing, in part, the auditors referenced would be solely interested in cumulative current fiscal year expenditures.
Taking a much closer look at the e-mail suggests the UEA was expecting to spend $260,000 in FY 2007/2008 (i.e. FY 2008) per the calculations below:
Total Expected 2007/2008 Expenditure (FY 2008)
FY 2008 to date $154,498 (Assuming Oct ’07 – March ’08)
April-June ’08 $58,880
July-Sept ’08 $47,190
FY 2008 Total $260,568
This would square with the UEAs totals to date figures quoted in the e-mail when viewed as follows:
Received to date $1,589,632 (presumably FY 1998 thru FY 2007)
FY 2008 to date $154,498 (presumably 1 Oct 2007 thru end of March ’08)
Total to date $1,744,130 (assuming FY 1998 thru the of March ’08)
The UEA’s $1,589,632 “Received to Data” figure above also squares with known Jones grant expenditures from FY 1998 to 2006. See data table below per Mr. James Sexton’s comment [18 July, 2010] where Mr. Sexton references details in known UEA grant expenditures from 1995 to 2006 at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=479. Other’s contributors figures also square with the FY 1998-2006 figures for the Jones grant account. Specifically see Martyn above on July 21, 2010 at 2:40 pm.
Jones, k $ Wigley, k $
FY 2006 $178 Na
FY 2005 $175 Na
FY 2004 $173 Na
FY 2003 $180 Na
FY 2002 $180 Na
FY 2001 $180 Na
FY 2000 $180 Na
FY 1999 $174 -$3
FY 1998 $170 Na
FY 1997 Na $200
FY 1996 Na $198
FY 1995 Na $192
Total $1,590 $587
However, there appears to be an unexplained anomaly in the UEA’s cumulative to date figures for the Jones account (prior to FY 2008). U.S. Government fiscal years run from Oct thru September of the following year. For example FY 2008 would be the time frame from 1 October 2007 thru 31 September 2008. The $1,590 k figure cumulative figure quoted for the Jones account, by the UEA in May 2008, would be correct if the UEA was quoting a FY 1998-2006 cumulative figure. However, the e-mail was written in FY 2008 (i.e., May 7, 2008). The UEA’s cumulative figure should be quoting a FY 1998-2007 cumulative figure. More plainly, the FY 2007 grant expenditure appears to be is missing from the UEA’s $1,589,632 cumulative to date figure.
Mr. Martyn comment above has indicated, the FY 2007 figure should be $199,570. See Mr. Martyn’s referencing of the DOE site http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-98ER62601. It appears, from these DOE’s records, that the UEA’s FY 1998-2007 cumulative figure should be $1,589,632 + $199,570 = $1,789,202. Not the $1,589,632 quoted in the UEA’s May 7, 2008, e-mail.
Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting fraud. The UEA finance officer may have simply overlooked the FY 2007 expenditures when she wrote the e-mail. An understandable error in situations where a hasty response is occuring. Certainly the DOE has not lost the missing $199,570 in its figures. However, the cumulative “to date” FY 1988-2007 figures quoted by UEA in the May 7, 2008, e-mail do not appear to be correct.
Please note the know grant totals spent from 1995 thru FY 2007, based on the above, are:
Jones Account 1998-2007 $2.177 million.
Wigley Account 1995-1999 $0.587 million
Total of above $2.377 million.
Also note the above total is certainly not comprehensive. As indicated in Mr. Verity Jone’s comment above, other grants appear to have been issued . As Mr. Verity Jones figures are in pounds I have not attempted to correlate where any overlap may exist.
Regards,
Kforestcat (Dave)

There was detailed info on CRU grants published by Jeff Id and Lubos Motl back in January. You can see links to graph and spreadsheet here:
http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=224

Kforestcat says:
July 21, 2010 at 11:05 pm
“Gentlemen
It appears that I was partially in error……where Mr. Sexton references details in known UEA grant expenditures from 1995 to 2006 at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=479. Other’s contributors figures also square with the FY 1998-2006 figures for the Jones grant account.”
Thanks K, but I think you are also improperly attributing credit to me where I have none coming. The link posted was in response to an earlier comment I had made. I believe Warwick Hughes is the source of that bit of information, see below. That being said, obviously, we keep digging. I’m not ready to close the book on this funding. As you observed, the money doesn’t add up. And why the DoE is funding this stuff to begin with isn’t well reasoned either. What I’m astounded by, is according the an e-mail in 2005 Dr. Jones states he’s had this grant contract for 25 years. Which means the funding for the AGW hysteria has been going on since 1980. Time lines and money are important details to get to truth.
At any rate, below is what I believe you are referencing when you attribute my contribution. The format of the comments lends to confusing sometimes. My thanks to you and Warwick.
Warwick Hughes says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“James Sexton says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:59 am
It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 ($200,000 USD) a year on a rolling three-year contract………..”

[snip]
Reply: you need a valid email address to post here. RT-mod

latitude says: “Do the Brits give them any money at all?”
After quick look through the spreadsheet entitled “pdj_grant_since1990.xls” I totalled up roughly £3.8million. The rest of the £13.7m came from the EU (which we bankroll), NATO, US Dept of Energy, and a few others I haven’t delved into.

When are alarmists going to stop defending this guy?

A buyer who buys a single product from a single supplier, continuously for around thirty years, must find the delivered product eminently suited to his purpose. I wonder what re-action an foi request to DoE would spark.

The comment by the CRU employee about not wanting DOE to know that he had been receiving grants for a long time likely had to do with the fact that he knew he was required to obey US laws (which means responding in a timely and honest/accurate fashion to FOI requests).