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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



trafamadore
February 20, 2013 at 5:47 pm
###
You are clueless about heat sinks. What else are you clueless about? BTW, Your the one who is silly to expect linear behavior out of a decidedly non linear system. Silly or a liar.
trafamadore,
Post your source re: record lows vs record highs. And make it a credible source — no SkS, RC, etc.
DesertYote says:”You are clueless about heat sinks. What else are you clueless about? BTW, Your the one who is silly to expect linear behavior out of a decidedly non linear system. Silly or a liar”
Okay. Pls explain yourself, Yotal. Exactly why am I wrong?
D.B. Stealey says:”Post your source re: record lows vs record highs. And make it a credible source — no SkS, RC, etc.”
right. google your own words, “record lows vs record highs”, the first page has something for everyone. I liked the one with the pie charts of 2009 to 2012…
>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.
>>> Well, Wuebblee-doo, another game of whac-a-mole. This story keeps coming back, despite numerous rebuttals, backed by data, showing it’s a heap of hot garbage. Wuebble’s “fact” refers to an embarassing paper by a bunch of NCAR modelers who chose to ignore data since the 1880’s and claim that only the climate since 1950 counts. Check out the charts in previous “whacs” posted on WUWT and elsewhere, including:
“Why NCAR’s Meehl paper on high/low temperature records is bunk”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/why-ncars-meehl-paper-on-highlow-temperature-records-is-bunk/
More Critique Of NCAR Cherry Picking Temperature Record Study
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_Critique_Of_Ncar_Cherry_Picking_Tempeature_Record_Study.pdf
and “RIDING THE HEAT WAVES”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/riding_the_heat_waves.pdf
and you’ll see why they chose to ignore all those years before 1950. Including the 1930s. Half of all of the U.S. state extreme maximum records were set in that one decade along, and including that infamous decade in their analysis would have blown their story line. When you include the 1930s, the number of cold records is actually increasing in recent years, compared to the heat records. Wuebble’s “fact” is on wobbly ground, indeed.
Dust Bowl Deniers, they are.
trafamadore says:
February 20, 2013 at 6:49 pm
DesertYote says:”You are clueless about heat sinks. What else are you clueless about? BTW, Your the one who is silly to expect linear behavior out of a decidedly non linear system. Silly or a liar”
Okay. Pls explain yourself, Yotal. Exactly why am I wrong?
###
Probably because you have given your brain over to so much lefty nonsense, you are no longer able to think. That is why you are wrong.
BTW, to find out HOW you are wrong, I would suggest reading a text on heat sink theory. A hint, a heat sink that gets its heat by converting sunlight, can only heat the surrounding atmosphere, not cool it. As soon as the heat sink reaches the temp of its surroundings, it no longer has any effect. The third order approximation for describing the heat transfer in an environment with moving air is a hideously complicated four degree polynomial in terms of the temp delta. The movement of heat within a heat sink is best described by hyperbolic geometry. I let you figure out what this means in the context of a 24 hour day were solar flux leads air temps by hours.
trafamadore says:
February 20, 2013 at 7:42 am
“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.
You have put “normal” in quotes for a reason. I guess this is because the concept of “normal” with respect to station data has implied change since at least the 1930s when the idea was systematized. Given that and the fact that there seems to be some ups and downs in “global temperature” and US temperatures – Things happen that a good grasp of numbers can help with.
I’ve found this helpful:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/record-temperatures-and-female-fields.html
“…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…”
Wow.
The “new hotter world” still hasn’t managed to meet or exceed the 90-year-old world record for length of a heat wave.
In 1923/1924, in a little Australian town of Marble Bar, there was a heat wave of 160 straight days of temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or better.
Wiki: The town set a world record of most consecutive days of maximum temperatures of 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) or more, during a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924.
Their source: http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
So the heatwaves of the past “…would not have been as hot, or lasted this long…”
But that extreme weather event wasn’t the only one:
“…In the record year of 1923-24 the monsoon trough stayed well north, and the season was notable for its lack of cyclone activity. (In fact, the entire Australian continent was untouched by tropical cyclones throughout the season, a rare event in the 20th Century). The rainfall recorded at Marble Bar during the record 160 days was just 79 mm…”
Temps of 100 degrees or more, and only 79mm (3.11in) of rain.
How is that more extreme than what we’re seeing today?
“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…..”
This is unbelievable nonsense. Between 1950 and 2000 the world did get a bit warmer. After a period of warming it will always be easier to set a warm record than a cold record, simply because the base is higher.
In my opinion, science should have nothing to do with records as they can be completely misleading. The only thing that matters is the actual trend.
Chris
Brent Hargreaves says:
February 20, 2013 at 4:12 am
The words “scientists say…” in press releases is beginning to make my top lip curl up. It’s about time real scientists dissociated themselves from wall-to-wall alarmism before the entire profession is brought into disrepute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too Late
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
The smearing of scientists has already started.
John F. Hultquist says:”You have put “normal” in quotes for a reason.”
normal distribution, that “normal”.
trafamadore says:
February 20, 2013 at 5:29 pm
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 CO2.)
———————————————————————————–
Dude, I suppose it was all that CO2 that set almost 90% of current US high Temps at long running stations, and this despite UHI.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/89-of-us-july-14-high-temperature-records-were-set-below-350-ppm-co2/
Now, the best way to eliminate all the legitmate questions about new stations, heat sinks, etc, etc, is to use long running continues stations. So please explain this.
trafamdore guy, if you dislike particular days, lets see how all that 1930s CO2 affected months.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/hottest-months-in-the-us/
BTW Trafmdore guy, even james Hansen would have debunked your claims ten years ago…
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/how-giss-corrupt-us-temperatures/