Well known climate scientist and activist James Hansen has a new paper on climate science titled, Climate Variability and Climate Change: The New Climate Dice.

In the paper he directly and without equivocation ties the Moscow (2010) and Texas (2011) heat waves to climate change:

Thus there is no need to equivocate about the summer heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, which exceeded 3 sigma - it is nearly certain that they would not have occurred in the absence of global warming. If global warming is not slowed from its current pace, by mid-century 3 sigma events will be the new norm and 5 sigma events will be common.

And later, he states:

The most important change of the climate dice is probably the appearance of extreme hot summer anomalies, with mean temperature at least three standard deviations greater than climatology, over about 10% of land area in recent years. These extreme temperatures were practically absent in the period of climatology, covering only a few tenths of one percent of the land area. Therefore we can say with a high degree of confidence that events such as the extreme summer heat in the Moscow region in 2010 and Texas in 2011 were a consequence of global warming.

Hansen then closes his paper with a parting shot at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, noting that he called global warming a hoax and asked Texans to pray for rain back in April. Of the unanswered prayers, Hansen writes:

Science cannot disprove the possibility of divine intervention. However, there is a relevant saying that “Heaven helps those who help themselves.” Science does show that business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions will cause atmospheric CO2 to continue to increase rapidly. The increasing greenhouse gases will cause the rapid global warming of the past three decades to continue, and this warming will cause the climate dice to become more and more loaded with greater and greater extreme events. The probability that this conclusion is wrong is about as close to zero as one can get.

Hansen is becoming more and more delusional. To say the there has been “rapid global warming of the past three decades” is clearly a fiction of his own mind. And even if it were true, it would say nothing about what is causing it. He has gone so far over the edge that he now believes his own manipulation of the data.

As we have seen from the revelations of the Penn State affair, large institutions with massive amounts of money at stake are actually, in my opinion, more likely to be corrupted and “look the other way” when it comes to situations that could threaten the reputation of the institution and, in the end, their finacial status.

The Goddard Intitute for Space (really?) Studies is one of those many institutions that can’t vary from the dogma of man made global warming. To do so would threaten not only the institution’s funding from the government but the careers of the funded individuals who feed at the government nipple.

Vitually the entire reseach system in colleges and universites “looks the other way” when they see evidence that the theory of man made global warming is flawed. They can’t afford to be seen as condeming the very system that “grants” them their living.

Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally gotten the issue of extreme events right?  Maybe so. At the BBC Richard Black says that he has a copy of the forthcoming IPCC extremes report and shares some of what it says prior to being considered by governments this week:

For almost a week, government delegates will pore over the summary of the IPCC’s latest report on extreme weather, with the lead scientific authors there as well. They’re scheduled to emerge on Friday with an agreed document.

The draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns.

He describes a report that is much more consistent with the scientific literature than past reports (emphasis added):

When you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.

There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.

In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.

While it is “likely” that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only “medium confidence” that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and “low confidence” in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.

(These terms have specific meanings in IPCC-speak, with “very likely” meaning 90-100% and “likely” 66-100%, for example.)

And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

It’s also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we’ve seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions: “Increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence).

“Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.”

None of this is a surprise to me, and it won’t be to regular readers of this blog. After working for more than a decade on this issue with many colleagues around the world, it is indeed satisfying to see the climate science community on the brink of finally get this topic right, after botching it at almost every previous opportunity.

But before declaring victory, it is worth noting Black’s expectation that governments will be pressing for different conclusions because money is at stake:

Developing countries like the fact that under the UN climate process, the rich are committed to funding adaptation for the poor.

Yet as the brief prepared for the Dhaka meeting by the humanitarian charity Dara shows, it isn’t happening anywhere near as fast as it ought to be.

Only 8% of the “fast-start finance” pledged in Copenhagen, it says, has actually found its way to recipients.

It’s possible - no, it’s “very likely” - that the IPCC draft will be amended as the week progresses, and presumably the governments represented at the Climate Vulnerable Forum will be asking their delegates to inject a greater sense of urgency.

The good news about the leaked document is that efforts to alter the text will be noticed. Based on Black’s report, it seems that the IPCC has at long last done the right thing on extreme events and climate change.  It will be most interesting to see the reactions. 

I didn’t actually see what Heidi Cullen of Climate Central dressed up as for Halloween but I can make a good guess, Chicken Little. Cullen wrote a story recently for Salon Magazine arrogantly titled “Stop pretending it’s not climate change”. So now anyone who thinks differently than the highly educated and well paid Ms. Cullen is not only a denier they are now a pretender as well! Just below the story headline are three pictures. One shows a fire in Texas, as if they have never had a drought there and never had wild fires, old news. The next is a car nearly underwater in Paterson, New Jersey after tropical storm Irene, as if the northeast has never had a tropical storm or hurricane before, breaking news! The last picture is even better, a guy in New York moving snow with a snowblower in January. This just in (bring up dramatic music) it snows in New York in the winter, tune in at 11:00 for the shocking details, yikes! You can’t make this stuff up.

This story is as bad as it gets. It starts with a quote from weather expert and renowned climate scientist Brian Williams of NBC nightly news saying “All I know is this didn’t happen when we were kids”. Actually it all happened when he was a little boy but little Brian didn’t notice because he was a just a kid. People who actually study the history of weather have seen all of this and more before. The story goes on to say “Floods, droughts, wildfires and tornadoes dominated the news many nights in 2011.” The reason for this is because the news networks hire consultant to tell them what news stories will help them to keep their share of the audience from shrinking faster than it already is. The nightly news programs have been losing audience since the birth of cable TV in the early 1980s. Bring in the internet (thank the creator of the universe, not Al Gore) and phones that allow people to see whatever they want, wherever they want it and you have a communications revolution. There have always been dramatic weather events but now the networks are all over them because some consultant told them it would help keep viewers. I was a TV meteorologist for 25 years so I know of what I speak.

Then there is the big storm in Alaska scare, gee like they never get a big storm in Alaska, wow! Actually I was thinking of vacationing there this winter. I hear global warming is going to make it much more comfortable although still a little dark. The highly educated Ms. Cullen says that lack of protective arctic sea ice due to melting from global warming is making storm surges from storms like this recent one more threatening. Oh really! The truth, according to the state of Alaska community database community information summary, is that the little town of Kivalina is looking to relocate 2.5 miles away due to severe erosion and wind driven ice damage. What? Ice damage? That’s right Heidi, wind driven ice damage. Maybe you should dump that Chicken Little outfit and dress up as a polar bear.

Cullen goes on to say that since her appearance here on earth in 1970 the temperature of the United States has been increasing at a rate of 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. When you take a closer look at the numbers you find something else. The actual trend from 1970 to 2011 is 0.46 degrees per decade, not a rounded off 0.5 degrees. The trend of US temperature from 1980 to 2011 is only 0.4 degrees per decade. From 1990 to 2011 the rate of warming decreases to 0.25 degrees per decade and since 2000 the US temperature is declining at a rapid rate of -0.70 degrees per decade. What the intellectually gifted Ms. Cullen forgets to mention (or doesn’t know?) is that naturally occurring ocean cycles significantly alter trends in temperatures for decades. The equatorial Pacific Ocean warms and cools for periods of 25 to 35 years. It’s called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). For three decades from 1945 to 1975 when the Pacific was cooler the United States temperature trend was down by 0.18 degrees per decade. When the pacific turned warmer in the mid-1970s until around 2000 the trend in United States temperature was up 0.66 degrees per decade. Since the Pacific Ocean has cooled since 2000 the trend of US temperature is plunging at the rate of 0.70 degrees per decade. If this rate were to continue for another 9 decades we would be in the next Ice Age by the year 2100. I don’t think that will happen but I’ve been wrong before.

The story goes on and on. Ms. Cullen says “All weather is now born (weather is born?) into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man made, heat trapping greenhouse gas pollution.” I guess her college professors never told her that carbon dioxide is plant food and without it all green, living things on earth would die. Strange stuff that pollution. She goes on to say “Thanks in part to warmer oceans, there is 4 percent more water vapor in the atmosphere and that amount will continue to increase as the planet warms, providing more fuel for storms. The figure of 4 percent more water vapor in the atmosphere comes from a prediction by an equation. The real world data from weather balloons over the last half century show no increase in water vapor in the atmosphere (NOAA ESRL Relative Humidity and Specific Humidity) As is usual with those predicting climate catastrophe, they rely on equations and computer models and ignore reality.

She goes on to say that this increase in water vapor will cause an increase in droughts, heat waves and wild fires. Well I guess the fire departments are going to have to find a new way to put out fires since water won’t work anymore! I really like this one. Heidi says that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is warning that “extremes caused by global warming could eventually grow so severe that some locations become marginal places to live”. Kind of like Kivalina, Alaska. As if Kivalina, Alaska wasn’t always a marginal place to live! Amazing, you can’t make this stuff up.

This diatribe of disaster goes on to say the number of natural disasters has tripled over the past 20 years. Well those disasters must be kinder and gentler because deaths world wide from weather is down dramatically in the last 100 years. Cullen says extreme weather is increasing but she is wrong. There is no definition of what an extreme weather event is. If you want to call a snowstorm or a heat wave or a record high or low temperature “extreme weather” you can but it is completely subjective and therefore meaningless. Some say that reports of severe or extreme weather have increased over the decades but this is due to better reporting and mass communications, not more weather. People like Heidi Cullen walk around with a little dark cloud over their head. It prevents them from seeing the real world around them.

On the same day that Nature published yet another editorial repudiating public examination of the conduct of academic institutions, Penn State President Graham Spanier was fired from his $813,000/year job for failing to ensure that a proper investigation was carried out in respect to pedophilia allegations in Penn State’s hugely profitable football program. The story is receiving massive coverage in North America because the iconic Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno, was also fired today.

CA readers are aware of Spanier’s failure to ensure proper investigation of Climategate emails and his untrue puffs about the ineffective Penn State Inquiry Committee, reported at CA here and by the the Penn State Collegian as follows:

Graham Spanier addressed the inquiry and the panel’s work during the Board of Trustees meeting on Jan. 22. Penn State President Spanier is quoted as saying:

“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,"Spanier said.

Spanier’s claims were totally untrue. Not only did the Inquiry Committee fail to “look at issues from all sides”, they didn’t even interview or take evidence from critics - as they were required to do under the applicable Penn State policy. As I reported at CA at the time:

The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that “North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release."]

They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s’claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer.

Although State Senator Piccola had written to Penn State President Spanier asking him to ensure that “the university must deploy its fullest resources to conduct an investigation of this case”, the Inquiry Committee decided that the investigation committee should not investigate three of the four charges “synthesized” by the inquiry committee and, as a result, despite the request of Piccola and others, no investigation was ever carried out Penn State on any of the key issues e.g the “trick...to hide the decline”, Mann’s role in the email deletion enterprise organised by Phil Jones or the failure to report adverse data which the House Energy and Commerce Committee had asked about (but not investigated by the NAS panel, whose terms of reference were sabotaged by Ralph Cicerone, President of NAS).

When told by the subsequent Investigation Committee that they weren’t investigating the substantive charges, Richard Lindzen told the committee,

“It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?”

Clive Crook of the Atlantic Monthly mercilessly criticized Penn State for their fatuous findings that success in bringing revenue to the university and accolades from peers necessarily meant that misconduct was precluded:

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann - the paleoclimatologist who came up with “the hockey stick” -would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for “lack of credible evidence”, it will not even investigate them....

You think I exaggerate?

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…

Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…

Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. In the case of Climategate, President Spanier apparently saw nothing wrong with reasoning that equated revenue generation with virtue and accepted the report.

In such a febrile environment, the likelihood of wilful blindness in respect to the far more profitable football program was that much greater and that appears to have been what happened. Even though a Penn State staff member witnessed a rape of a 10-year old by a more senior Penn State official, the junior Penn State staff member did not intervene at the time and investigation by more senior Penn State officials appears to have been cursory until a recent grand jury. (For example, they don’t appear to have bothered even identifying or interviewing the victims.)

It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program:

This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it, clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating a football program…

Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program…

Spanier planned to introduce Michael Mann at an invited lecture next February. I guess that someone else will make the introduction.

Spanier was fired not because of any personal role in the Sandusky football scandal, but because of negligence on his part in ensuring that the allegations were properly investigated. This was not the only case in which Spanier failed to ensure proper investigation of misconduct allegations. As noted above, Spanier had falsely reported to the Penn State trustees and the public that the Penn State Inquiry Committee had properly interviewed critics and had examined the Climategate documents and issues “from all sides”.

----------

An astute observer noted that Spanier’s then-idiocy:

The fact that the football team was drawing big crowds shows Sandusky couldn’t have been doing anything wrong.

I guess they felt since Mann was bringing in millions of grant dollars, he too must be innocent. No need to look.

We must congratulate NRDC for having done what no scientist can, definitively link weather events to the physically meaningless statistical global mean temperature

Health cost of 6 U.S. climate disasters: $14 billion - Deaths and health problems from floods, drought and other U.S. disasters related to climate change cost an estimated $14 billion over the last decade, researchers said on Monday.

“When extreme weather hits, we hear about the property damage and insurance costs,” said Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council and a co-author of the study. “The healthcare costs never end up on the tab.”

The study in the journal Health Affairs looked at the cost of human suffering and loss of life due to six disasters from 2000-2009.

“This in no way is going to capture all of the climate-related events that happened in the U.S. over that time period,” Knowlton said. “At $14 billion, these numbers are big already.” (Reuters)

---------------

Penn State sex scandal not the only outrage - it’s just the one media reported
US Report

Heads are spinning now over allegations of a sexual abuse scandal at Pennsylvania State University. Fox News said former football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, 67, “was arrested Saturday on charges that he preyed on boys he met through The Second Mile, a charity he founded for at-risk youths.”

Pennsylvania State Attorney General Linda Kelly alleged a coverup of Sandusky’s behavior. The Penn State athletic director and a senior vice-president have “stepped down” said Fox.

People aren’t so outraged about another coverup involving a professor at Penn State. That coverup doesn’t involve a sex scandal.

Penn State is also home to Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and well-funded pusher of manmade global warming. Mann has received millions (perhaps billions; I haven’t tallied the totals) of taxpayer dollars for research.

Thing is Mann, the public employee, likes secrecy.

In September, I reported on Mann’s refusal to make all his emails public. Those emails were generated at the University of Virginia.

The American Tradition Institute said:

“UVA, with approximately $500,000 in support from private donors, has resisted an earlier records request under a Civil Investigative Demand by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, which he initiated pursuant to the Commonwealth’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA). That case is now before the state Supreme Court. Press reports indicate the University decided not to cooperate after a similar pressure campaign was launched, also seeking to bar the taxpayer (or law enforcement) from seeing records the taxpayer underwrote.”

ATI noted that researchers “built a wall of protection around an invented ‘consensus’ view of global warming alarmism.” That wall was erected after the Climategate email scandal.

Mann’s research projects are currently listed on his curriculum vitae at Penn State. Will he keep his Penn State emails secret too?

Media have reported Mann has been repeatedly cleared of “any scientific misconduct.” Media neglected to mention Mann was “cleared” by his fellow academics.

As for global warming and carbon emissions, the politicization of physical science hasn’t worked out well for Main Street either. China is currently holding some serious gases hostage. The website Watts Up With That? cited a MarketWatch news release:

“In a shocking attempt to blackmail the international community, Xie Fei, revenue management director at the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund, threatened: ‘If there’s no trading of [HFC-23] credits, they’ll stop incinerating the gases’ and vent them directly into the atmosphere. Speaking at the Carbon Forum Asia in Singapore last week, Xie Fei claimed he spoke for ‘almost all the big Chinese producers of HFCs who ‘can’t bear the cost’ and maintain that ‘they’ll lose competitiveness.’”

Secrecy among public employees does not work out well for people, whether it involves sex or carbon.

Climate Depot, a site that monitors global warming and climate change research, says more than 1,000 scientists disagree with manmade global warming claims.

For years, the public and Congress heard only one side of the global warming issue. Climategate changed all that.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Nov. 8, 2011)