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.
From 1650 until 2005 the Sun has [on the average] been releasing more energy. This has had the effect of warming the planet. We have been in a warming period [not caused by man].
Now, with the Sun in a funk, we are entering a cooling period. We have never gone through a long term cooling period with “scientific monitoring”. We have only had a long term warming period with “scientific monitoring”.
With no previous examples, the complex weather nature of the planet can’t be effectively modeled. There is no way to verify the computer models. During this cooling period, as the events happen then the models can be verified.
Viewers to the “Weather Channels” love to see “weather events” especially if they can watch a pretty girl wandering out in the rain, wind or, most of all, snow.
All “news stations” know that extreme events attract viewers, especially if presented by a pretty woman.
“Tree-ring records from the American Southwest, for example, suggest that drought during the 13th century may have driven the residents of Mesa Verde, …”
###
Of course when this factoid is references it is missing a bit of context such as what the global temperature was doing at the time.
Jimbo says:
February 20, 2013 at 7:40 am
I think Jimbo has hit the nail firmly on the head, from his own CV he is being paid to LIE.
“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.”
Moored on the US measurement network. Okay, fine. But your new weather stations…shouldnt _they_ have equal numbers of record lows and highs? I mean, even if I put a new weather station in a Sears Parking lot next to the air conditioners, I would expect it to have equal numbers of record lows and highs, relative to its own self.
and to eric1skeptic: the normal I was referring to was the normal distribution, and over the years it should tend to hold….and the time range was picked by the Anthony, not me.
REPLY: You obviously don’t understand how the physics of heat sinks work, these new stations have heat sinks and sources near them. As documented. – Anthony
REPLY: You obviously don’t understand how the physics of heat sinks work, these new stations have heat sinks and sources near them. As documented. – Anthony
That’s really interesting, Anthony. Could you expand on that? You say that even relative to themselves all the new thermometers have been put in hot places so they just keep getting hotter and hotter. Like on a cold day they show hotter compared to the same cold day a year ago. That can’t go on forever, surely. Do they eventually get so hot that they stop working altogether?
REPLY: Don’t put words in mouth, I said no such thing. Look up how the physics of heat sinks works, and you’ll understand instead of bloviating about aimlessly to score points. Though somehow, I think that’s really your intent, not understanding….
…especially since you seem to be the now banned “Lazy Teenager” repackaged under yet another fake name. Or should I call you “Aston”??? – Anthony
Here is Mr. Wobbles on the Climate Communication advisory board with the honorable Peter Gleick and Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann. You see, it’s not about the scientific evidence but propaganda.
http://climatecommunication.org/who-we-are/advisors/
Here they are on extreme weather and heat waves. Here they re-define the weather and try to make it become the climate.
http://climatecommunication.org/what-we-do/publicize/
They do this by communicating their lies and propaganda to lazy journalists.
http://climatecommunication.org/what-we-do/assist/
Climate change is real and has and will always happened. The weather will be variable tomorrow, next week, next year, decade. But whatever happened to anthropogenic global warming? Whatever happened to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Runaway Global Warming??? Can someone help?
JIMBO: Great clippings, should be read by all.
Martin says:
February 20, 2013 at 8:01 am
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.
No, keep the satelite data but take out the … adjusted… historical data.
Is there more water vapor in the atmosphere? I thought humidity levels were declining.
No I’m not Lazy Teenager (who’s that?). I was trying to understand what you meant. If temperatures aren’t really going up, as you say, and it’s just an artefact of UHI and new thermometers.
Trafamadore’s post was saying that even if the thermometer was put in a hot place, then relative to itself it should still show the same number of highs as lows, assuming the temperature isn’t really going up. You said not so, that’s not how heat sinks work. I figured you meant that the temperature as measured by the UHI thermometer would just keep on going up and I assumed you meant forever. I can’t see how that can be. Now you say I got it wrong. So does that mean Trafamadore was right all along? That once it settled down a thermometer should be showing equal numbers of highs as lows – assuming as you are saying that the temperature isn’t really going up.
Sorry if I’m being a bit thick headed about all this. I’m here to learn.
REPLY: Yes you are being thick-headed, and it seems as if on purpose. For the third time, go read about heat sinks and the physics of them. There’s your answer. – Anthony
Anthony, Re your reply to trafamadore 7:42 am
What classification scale was that pie chart? Was it the official NOAA scale or is it the Leroy 2010?
Another thing about the error estimates of either classification. There seems to be an implied +/- symmetry in the error which further implies a 0 bias. There is no reason to belief that the sources of error are equally weighted toward the warmer and cooler. Calling it “error” is charitable. Calling it “potential bias” is far closer to the truth.
REPLY: You obviously don’t understand how the physics of heat sinks work, these new stations have heat sinks and sources near them. As documented. – Anthony
You are correct, in that I dont understand. I thought a heat sink was a simple something that smoothes out temp extremes and spikes, sort of like the block made out of aluminum in my computer that has the CP tacked onto it. I dont understand the part about allowing high extremes (albeit, smoothed) and not allowing lows.
To make your argument hold, don’t you haf to invoke _changes_ around your new post 50s stations (your US measurement network explanation, I thought it had a component in it for new development (sources) around the temp stations)? And in your pie chart up there, your “good” stations, couldn’t you examine each station and count its record mins and maxs through time, since they were established? (you have the averages, do you have the individual daily records??) I wonder what you would find?
BTW, my heat sink in my computer reached a record low this AM; but I have to say it was -9 C out when I walked in and it is a new 3 week old computer…
REPLY: Snark gets you nowhere except further down. Why don’t you do some reading and original research and tell us, I’m not going to waste time on you. Here’s a good start: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ – Anthony
It always bothers me that statistics are usually quoted as from “…the 1950’s”. Did we not have weather/climate changes before that? By all accounts, the Spanish reported severe weather in the western Atlantic 500 years ago. How severe was it?
Let’s face it, we only have “global” weather data from the late ’70’s when the first Earth resources satillites were launched. The data from the early years is no longer accurate enough to fit into current calculations (margin of error). That is not enough!
RobertInAz says:
February 20, 2013 at 7:02 am
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
That’s interesting. Blocking patterns are a result of what’s called “meridional circulation” patterns. The interesting part is that these patterns occur during a cooling climate.
“During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.” There’s even a nice diagram: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES
REPLY: Snark gets you nowhere except further down.
??
Why don’t you do some reading and original research and tell us, I’m not going to waste time on you. Here’s a good start: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ – Anthony
Actually I am already somewhat familiar with your manuscript, but you are doing an apples and oranges thing. Unless it is hidden in some attached file somewhere, your metric is average temperature not record temperature. But, if the record temps mirror the averages, and if the temperature distributions are symmetric, your study could be relevant and could explain the asymmetric bias, and we dont need to worry about explaining heat sinks. Maybe we should just leave it there.
REPLY: and he still doesn’t understand about heat sinks and how they affect both record high temperatures as well as averages, and he refuses to go read up on it. Heat sinks hold heat, making a warm day easier to reach a new high, thanks to a higher starting point from previous day. When you have a stagnant weather pattern, like Texas 2012, the heat sink problem really escalates. Lows, not so much, but it depends on the weather conditions and season and insolation, Then there’s heat sources, waste heat, which can also affect the microclimate giving it a boost. Then there is increased humidity due to irrigation, something humans do near these climate stations with regularity: moist enthalpy. Dr. John Christy proved this in California Central Valley weather stations.
It blows my mind that you can’t see these issues, but maybe you have no critical thinking skills, or maybe you just can’t get past the mind block of CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2…. – Anthony
-Anthony
University of Illinois atmospheric junk science professor Donald Wuebbles will present a talk about how he is became a junk scientist at the 2013 AAASSS meeting.
trafamadore said “and to eric1skeptic: the normal I was referring to was the normal distribution, and over the years it should tend to hold”
The distribution of high and low temperatures should be Gaussian over the years, but I’m not sure that answers the question of why we would expect more record high events in a naturally-varying world. The answer to that is that the statistics of temperature in any or all locations varies with the weather patterns including very long term patterns. When locations like the continental US experience La Nina we get a lot of heat especially record heat from combined dryness and blocked high pressure. The 1930’s had that and I brought it up because it explains a lot of the continental US records. Others are explained by UHIE. Still others are pushed over the edge by an average 0.6C or less of global warming. But that last category has to be a pretty small factor considering the other influences can be responsible for 10C or more.
should say “naturally-varying” not varting.
It is pretty circular to promote AGW on TV and then claim that AGW is happening because the TV editorial policy is to put on as much AGW hype as possible.
@DavidLHagen
IPCC’s SREX, R.Pielke Jr, WUWT negate D. Wuebbles’ #ClimateChange #AAASmtng alarms #climate http://v.gd/NurpKp http://v.gd/GVv3mv
eric1skeptic says:”The distribution of high and low temperatures should be Gaussian over the years, but I’m not sure that answers the question of why we would expect more record high events in a naturally-varying world. The answer to that is that the statistics of temperature in any or all locations varies with the weather patterns including very long term patterns.”
or, another hypothesis, perhaps one you have heard, is that there are more high records because it is getting warmer (because of the CO2).
Anthony say,” Heat sinks hold heat, making a warm day easier to reach a new high, thanks to a higher starting point from previous day.”
Okay, very good….and heat sinks hold cold, making a cold day easier to reach a new low, thanks to a lower starting point from previous day.
Sorry, it works both ways. To think otherwise is silly.
trafamadore, get a grip on reality. Global temperature has risen only ≈0.8ºC over the past 150 years. There are as many record lows as record highs. And that minuscule global warming occurs at night, and in the higher latitudes, and in winter.
As a matter of fact, the temperature over the past century and a half has been amazingly flat. You’ve bought into a completely fabricated scare story, hook, line and sinker. If you used your brain you would understand that.
And, BTW, I dont meant to belittle your other sources, humidity and waste heat, I agree, they can be a problem in siting temp stations. (And, do you include contrails in the humidity category…you should because I think it actually affects the temp min, based on studies from the week after 9/11) But the heat sink argument, that one isnt helping you, let it go.
D.B. Stealey says:”There are as many record lows as record highs.”
Very good, you are right, mr weasel word. But there are many more _new_ highs in the last 30 years than _new_ lows.