A couple of days ago there was this PR from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
I decided it was just too ridiculous to get any traction. I was wrong, an even more ridiculous press release followed this one. Only one problem; Wuebbles doesn’t understand the difference between reality and reporting bias – Anthony

Climate change’s costly wild weather consequences
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Throughout 2012, the United States was battered by severe weather events such as hurricanes and droughts that affected both pocketbooks and livelihoods. Research suggests that in the coming years, U.S. five-day forecasts will show greater numbers of extreme weather events, a trend linked to human-driven climate change.
Donald Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, will discuss extreme weather in a presentation Feb. 15 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.
In recent decades, multi-day heat waves and severe precipitation have become more frequent. For example, in the U.S. in the 1950s, the number of days that set record high temperatures was equal to the number of days that set record low temperatures. By the 2000s, the United States was twice as likely to see a record high as a record low.
“Human-driven climate change is in fact driving changes in severe weather, and that leads to a lot of potential impacts in both humans and wildlife that end up being costly in many different ways,” Wuebbles said.
As the global climate changes, normal weather patterns are altered. This is because the increasingly warmer atmosphere holds larger amounts of water vapor, which energizes storms, Wuebbles said.
The consequences of severe weather are much greater than the disappointment of a missed picnic or the inconvenience of a power outage. Weather-related disasters incur huge expenses, taxing both public funds and private equity. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 11 extreme weather events costing more than $1 billion each occurred in 2012.
“What we’ve seen in general is that the number of billion-dollar events has increased over the last three decades,” Wuebbles said. “It’s not just hurricanes, it’s really a number of different types of weather extremes that are increasing, and that’s what the worry is.”
In his talk, Wuebbles will discuss the current understanding of severe weather in relation to the science of climate change, as well as speak about the issues and uncertainties that will affect the U.S. and world in the coming years.
OK today we have this press release from AAAS:
Scientists Say Wild Weather Is Here to Stay
Cable news junkies, take heart: if you love wall-to-wall coverage of hurricanes, wildfires and superstorms, your future viewing schedules will be jam-packed.
Researchers at the AAAS Annual Meeting said that wild weather events like Superstorm Sandy and the severe Texas drought are the new normal in North America, as human-driven climate change has made these events more intense and more frequent.

Consider these facts:
• In the 1950s, the number of days that set record high temperatures in the U.S. was equal to the number of days that set record low temperatures. By the 2000s, record highs were twice as likely as record low.
• The amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest rain and snow events in the United States has increased by nearly 20% since the 1950s.
• Since the 1970s, the Atlantic Ocean has seen substantial increases in nearly every measure of hurricane activity, from frequency to storm intensity.
“The scientific analyses are now indicating a strong link between changing trends in severe weather events and the changing climate,” said Donald Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Illinois. “Every weather event that happens nowadays takes place in the context of a changed background climate.”
“Globally the temperatures are higher, the sea levels are higher, and there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, which energizes storms. So nothing is entirely natural anymore,” he said. “The background atmosphere has changed and continues to change due to human activity.”
Extreme weather took political center stage earlier this week, when U.S President Barack Obama mentioned Superstorm Sandy and other severe weather events in his State of the Union speech.
However, the president was careful to note that “no single event makes a trend,” an idea echoed by the researchers at a AAAS news briefing.
“While a particular heat wave may have still have occurred in the absence of human-induced warming,” Wuebbles explained, “it would not have been as hot, or lasted this long, and such events would not occur as frequently.”
Ecologists and wildlife biologists have been steadily compiling evidence that climate change has profound effects on plants and animals, affecting where they thrive and when they breed or flower, among other events. But University of Texas at Austin biologist Camille Parmesan said some of these changes also can be driven by extreme weather events—even just a few days of extreme heat or rainfall.
Climate change interacts with other factors such as pollution and shrinking habitats to affect plant and animal populations, Parmesan acknowledged. But, she said, studies of coral reefs and other natural habitats suggest that “if we reduce these other human stresses, we actually can increase resilience and resistance in natural ecological systems.”
It remains to be seen whether humans can be similarly resilient in the face of extreme weather, the researchers said. The past holds several examples of other societies that did not fare so well under severe climate change.
Tree-ring records from the American Southwest, for example, suggest that drought during the 13th century may have driven the residents of Mesa Verde, Colorado to flee their fields and homes. “The historical record shows us a community that may have failed environmentally,” said David Stahle, a tree-ring scholar from the University of Arkansas. “We are doing the same thing now in terms of our heavy consumption of water and fossil fuels.”
Wuebbles said he has talked with farmers in the American Midwest who are already changing planting times and seed types in response to recent years of severe drought and floods. And other states are grappling with the financial implications of a future of weather extremes.
Texas State climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon has been tracking the fallout from his state’s ongoing drought, which he said was triggered more by extreme high temperatures than a lack of rainfall.
Reservoirs are at their lowest levels since the 1990s, and the state legislature will meet this spring to discuss a water plan that ensures supplies for the next 50 years. “But it costs $53 billion,” Nielsen-Gammon said, “and there’s presently no mechanism to fund it.”
“Up until this point, climate change has been largely an abstract concept because some of the United States has not seen a large increase in temperatures until just recently,” he added. “The awareness of the importance of dealing with climate change is just now becoming apparent within our state.”
===============================================================
Dr. Wuebbles might do well to read and understand how the march of technology has created a reporting bias in “cable news” providing us with “wall to wall coverage”:
And for his three points, the real facts are in [brackets in blue]:
• In the 1950s, the number of days that set record high temperatures in the U.S. was equal to the number of days that set record low temperatures. By the 2000s, record highs were twice as likely as record low. [Yes, but does Dr. Wuebbles know that most of the weather stations setting new records are NEW stations that have been added since then? See graph below:
Above is Figure 2a from NOAA/NCDC Peterson and Vose (1997), showing the change in temperature reporting stations over time for daily mean temperatures (solid line) and min/max temperatures (dotted line). Note that the number of stations added after 1950 was the biggest jump, and with so many new stations, it is logical that they’d set new records for their locations. Combine this with the growth of cities (UHI) and spectacularly poor station siting, and it is not at all surprising there are more warm records than cold.]
• The amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest rain and snow events in the United States has increased by nearly 20% since the 1950s. [Again, this can be explained by the addition of more weather stations after 1950, with more stations with rain and snow gauges added, you’ll see more events due to better spatial coverage. Rain and snow bands can often be very narrow, particularly from thunderstorms, and so catching these is dependent on a station being under the event]
• Since the 1970s, the Atlantic Ocean has seen substantial increases in nearly every measure of hurricane activity, from frequency to storm intensity. [ This is double plus wrong, see the graphs of Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy and Frequency below:
]
And…finally…
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. says
Let’s take a step back. The science on climate change, extreme events and disaster costs is clear and unambiguous. You don’t need to take my word for it, you can find the science well summarized in the IPCC SREX. And if you don’t like the IPCC you can find an array of peer-reviewed literature. I am happy to debate this topic with all comers as the data and analyses overwhelming support the claims below.
- US floods have not increased over a century or longer (same globally).
- US hurricane landfall frequency or intensity have not increased (in US for over a century or longer).
- US intense hurricane landfalls are currently in the longest drought (7 years+) ever documented.
- US tornadoes, especially the strongest ones, have not increased since at least 1950.
- US drought has decreased since the middle of the past century.
- US East Cost Winter Storms show no trends (here also).
- Disaster losses normalized for societal changes show no residual trends (US, other regions or globally).
The only thing that has increased that is extreme, is Dr. Wuebbles opinions.



“Note that the number of stations added after 1950 was the biggest jump, and with so many new stations, it is logical that they’d set new records for their locations.”
Except that all the stations last summer were setting records not just the newer ones. And the state records, city records, etc, those are on an area basis not a station basis.
REPLY: that doesn’t change the premise, and one summer heat wave caused by a blocking high pattern has nothing to do with the issue of climate since the 1950’s – Anthony
Go Illini! (the alumnus said sarcastically). Extremely disturbing if not a complete violation of scientific ethics to so thouroughly claim to be making statements of facts that are so clearly opinion. This is being done as a professor of science, no less. Selling studies that “suggest” as something more seems to be the common practice, but it’s not helpful to science or the questions at hand. And — both the practice and the conclusions here are provably wrong. A complete failure – from the U of I. All I can think is that they’ve decided to follow the path of Al Gore to Nobel glory rather than that old stodgy path that some of their previous laureates walked.
Wuebbles wobbles.
My mind reels that a “professor of Atmospheric science” would be so fast and lose with facts that are so easy to falsify. It’s time to start calling them out to their Universities. The credibility of all scientists is being quickly demolished. It’s time for the profession to claw back its integrity by calling out those who destroy its integrity.
Anthony can you comment about the claims of increased water vapor in the atmosphere?
It seems to me that is the basis of the theory for the extreme weather alarmists.
It really saddens me that we spend tens of thousands of dollars per year to educate students and for all that money we have someone like this teaching them.
Be wuebble wuebble [quiet] – I’m hunting climate change Wabbits.
This longish presentation has interesting information about the impact of less Arctic ice-warmer Arctic on the jet stream. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xugAC7XGosM
It explains why extreme events are getting more common: the jet stream slows down and meanders more creating longer lasting blocking patterns. The aggregate extreme event chart presented did not appear to have much of a slope. The effects are, of course, independent of the source of the Arctic warming: CO2, natural, both, other.
One of the more interesting points Dr. Francis makes in response to a question is that avoidance will not work. If CO2 theory is correct, the damage has already been done as the CO2 impact works its way through the climate system. She advocates adaptation.
His isn’t misinformation, it’s disinformation. Big difference, one is a mistake, the other is intentional.
All stations? Really? Can you point me to one on the west coast that recorded a record high in the summer of 2012? I won’t hold my breath.
“Every weather event that happens nowadays takes place in the context of a changed background climate.”
That is secular religion for sure – to think that every bit of weather is related to climate change. And how about those special new crop seeds, that can handle both floods and drought! Wuebbles is over the top goofy. But of course he drives a car and heats his home and uses electricity.
‘This is because the increasingly warmer atmosphere holds larger amounts of water vapor, which energizes storms, Wuebbles said.’
Wuebbles is wrong. The atmosphere warms more higher in the troposphere than at the surface which de-energizes storms. Likewise the relatively larger warming at the pole (north at least) decreases the meridional flow from the pole and de-energizes storms.
Wuebbles wobble, then they fall down.
Atlanitc hurricanes in number and intensity have increased since the 70s, he says? Isn’t that about the time they launched weather satellites to scan the Atlantic and see all those storms that neither come ashore or cut across shipping lanes to any great amount? If you count hurricanes reported by visual sitings, I suspect the number hasn’t gone up at all. As for intensity, since they don’t fly hurricane hunters into the majority of those storms, they “read” the intensity from satellites, thus who really knows what the true intensity is? The advances in the “science” of guessing by proxy has risen incredibly in the past 40 years or so. Not saying you can’t make an educated guess via proxies, but it’s still a guess, not a measurement.
Does anybody read all the posts before witty-wobbling? I think I counted five so far? A tad inane. No matter, Since Obama’s Stealth Climate stance, a whole spate of emboldened alarmists are getting top billing. It makes my heart sink, and my stomach turn, to read these similarly-worded freak-outs. WHERE IS THE DATA? there is none.
Below his picture I read:
I can’t believe that Dr. Wuebbles is not aware of the points Anthony has made regarding his claims. I can only conclude one of 3 things:
1) He is not aware and thus does not deserve his professorship or his PHD
OR
2) He is following the money despite the facts
OR
3) He has to follow the IPCC mantra because he has to despite the facts.
My last two points deserve due consideration because I read in his biography:
Maybe all 3 points are appropriate for this charlatan.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Propaganda from a major university? No, say it ain’t so!
Except that all the stations last summer were setting records not just the newer ones. And the state records, city records, etc, those are on an area basis not a station basis.

REPLY: that doesn’t change the premise, and one summer heat wave caused by a blocking high pattern has nothing to do with the issue of climate since the 1950′s – Anthony
Okay. The point wasn’t one heat wave, it was all the recording stations in one region tend to report the same value, +- micro regional differences, as you know better than most.
And I was wondering after I wrote that, your new station argument could be used for record lows, which we don’t seem to be getting much of these days. They should equal out in a “normal” world.
REPLY: re: new record lows and balance – Not when proximity to heat sinks and sources due to encroachment are a factor in ~90% of the US measurement network.
-Anthony
One wonders why people can’t make the logical leap (really a baby step) from the fact that we have 24 hour news and weather coverage, a media that thrives on sensationalism, and a political system and social structure that gives far more weight to illogical emotional appeals than to facts and logical argumentation – to the “increase” in wild weather. We also, not coincidentally, have an “increase” in gun violence, when the data shows otherwise…
trafamadore says: They [record high and record lows] should equal out in a “normal” world.
Not true. A “normal” world will have cycles of warmth and cold and record highs will exceed record lows at times. They did in the 1930’s. Perhaps trafamadore can explain why he only cares about the change in ratio since the 1950’s instead of going back to the 1930’s.
This hyping of weather though is par for the course with where systems thinking coupled to very graphic video gaming that creates virtual economies, ecological systems, wars, urban areas. It’s all designed to create false beliefs about how reality works. Both bad hard science like Wuebbles but also a belief that social systems like a city or economy will work and can be manipulated like a computer model. I am not speculating on this. I have tracked it back to MIT decades ago and it clearly underlies what is being introduced as project based learning, assessments, and science curriculum under the Common Core.
It’s no accident that U of I-Urbana-Champlain is where the National Council of Teaches of English is located which does not define literacy any more as you or I would. And sees all sorts of transformational opportunities for this Systems thinking/ICT classroom. It really is a new world in terms of trying to alter the perceptual filter with new, pre-supplied and quite false metaphors to hopefully get applied in new situations. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/the-need-to-know-as-we-understand-it-today-may-be-a-lethal-cultural-sport/ is another NSF tragedy that will come to no good. And probably great harm as we cannot really evaluate what is being pushed in these online Cyberlearning curriculum. Just ask the Texans about how accessible C Scope is.
That will be where the Wuebbles rhetoric and visuals will be reenforced. Along with all the systems theorist. Students will come to believe reality works like a created, virtual model. That will have cause and effect that mirror confusing weather and climate and creating politically useful false beliefs.
Thanks, Anthony. I thought the article mentioned the effect of the Texas drought was worse more because of the heat than the lack of rain. But I take it you say Nielson-Gammon is wrong about that. It’s probably just an artefact of UHI and new thermometers.
Do you think they need to adjust the EPA/NOAA chart (below) to take account of UHI and all the new thermometers? Maybe take out the satellite data, which looks to be wrong as well, probably because they are relatively new.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html
“But the USA is only a small part of the globe”
(Old Warmist rebuttal now forgotten).
“The weather is not the same as climate”.
(Old Warmist rebuttal now forgotten)
They have forgotten these points because the world has stopped warming and they are becoming very, very desperate people indeed.
Now for something a little different.
See also WUWT extreme climate page.
Oh, I forgot, here is the MSM reporting on bad weather of the past. Imagine these stories today? The sky is falling head for the caves!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/bad-weather/
Seems a bit Blackadder-ish: you recall the episode where he puts underwear over his head, a pencil up each nostril and says “Wuebble”?