Things don’t look promising for the perennial climate confab which convenes in Durban, South Africa today.  There is little chance of extending the expiring 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.  Kyoto has turned into a giant international scam that has already wasted hundreds of billions, with little to show for it; in fact, the increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases has been accelerating.

What brings nearly 200 delegations together is a dream—the forlorn hope that developed nations who have ratified the Protocol will come up with a $100-billion-per-year aid program.  This is supposed to allow developing nations to adapt to the putative climate disasters that the IPCC, the U.N.’s climate-science panel, has been predicting for more than 20 years.  The U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, is expected to supply the lion’s share of this subsidy.  Fat chance; just look at the polls and listen to the statements from leading Republican presidential candidates who denounce these disaster predictions as “hoax” and “poppycock.”

But the 10,000 or so Durban attendees—official delegates, U.N. and government officials, journalists, NGO types, and other hangers-on—will have a grand old time: two weeks of feasting, partying, living it up in luxury hotels, and greeting old friends at this 17th reunion—all at someone else’s expense.  Statesmen will arrive on the last day to sign important-sounding communiqués and quickly depart before having to explain just how they will “save the climate” and humanity.

Developed nations are on a guilt trip, convinced that their industrial development has resulted in most of the past rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  But is this necessarily bad?  Have extreme climate events really increased?  Can we even trace and prove a measurable anthropogenic effect on climate?  Or, more likely perhaps, have higher CO2 levels improved crop yields and averted mass starvation of a growing world population?  What does science have to say about this?

That’s where the U.N.-IPCC should come into play.  But its credibility has been irreparably damaged—especially in the past two years.  Personally, I tend to discount the recent revelations of the e-mails of “Climategate” bearing on IPCC incompetence and lack of trustworthiness.  These e-mails are not telling me anything new.  The “usual suspects” are seen to be plotting and scheming to support “the cause”—even as some of them are beginning to have doubts.  Yet they continue to hide information, manipulate data, and subvert the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific integrity.  The damage they cause to the general scientific enterprise is hard to overestimate.

But quite aside from the non-ethical behavior of the IPCC principals, what about the science itself?  Perhaps the science isn’t so certain after all—even though the IPCC report of 2007 claims to be 90 to 99 percent sure that most of the claimed warming between 1978 and 2000 is anthropogenic, caused by carbon dioxide from the burning of fuels to generate energy.

As an atmospheric scientist, I am intrigued by the results of the BEST project, said to “confirm” the findings of the temperature analyses of the IPCC.  Indeed, they all seem to show a rapid warming of the land surface between 1978 and 2000.  So, it is claimed, this proves that “global warming is real.”

But I wonder about the logic of this assertion.  After all, BEST and IPCC are not really independent; they all rely on readings from land-surface thermometers at weather stations.  Even though BEST used about five times as many stations, these covered the same land area—less than 30% of the Earth’s surface—with recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in the U.S. and Western Europe.

The warmistas apparently have not listened to the somewhat skeptical pronouncements from Prof. Richard Muller, the originator and leader of the well-documented and transparent BEST study.  He states that 70% of U.S. stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.

But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean—according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons.  This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land-surface data.  Climate models, run on supercomputers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface—and so does theory.

How, then, does one explain the absence of any warming of the atmosphere?  I have real doubts about reported warming of the oceans during the same time period.  And there is little question that proxy (non-thermometer) data show mostly no post-1978 warming trend.  I note that the multi-proxy analysis published by Michael Mann et al (Nature, 1998) suddenly stops in 1978.  I would place a small bet that this analysis shows no post-1978 warming—which may be why it was withheld.

None of the warmistas can explain why the climate hasn’t warmed in the 21st century, while CO2 has been increasing rapidly.  Muller is careful to make no claim whatsoever that the warming he finds is due to human causes.  He tells us that one third of the 39,000 stations used by BEST show cooling, not warming trends—and admits that “the uncertainty [involved in these stations] is large compared to the analyses of global warming.” Muller nevertheless insists that if he uses a large enough set of bad numbers, he could get a good average.  I am not so sure.

It might be a good idea if BEST would carry out some prudent internal checks to eliminate possible sources of error.  Of course, the most important checks must come from records—atmosphere, ocean, and proxies—that are independent of weather station thermometers.  Even then, it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact causes of climate change.

I conclude, therefore, that the balance of evidence favors little if any global warming during 1978-2000; it contradicts the main conclusion of the IPCC—i.e., that recent warming is “very likely” (90%-99% certain) caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases like CO2.  There is no evidence at all for significant future warming.  BEST is a valuable effort, but it does not settle the climate debate.

So we are left with a puzzle: why do land-surface data differ from all other independent climate results?  Is there really substantial global warming to support the IPCC’s conclusion of AGW?  These are the fundamental questions to focus on in Durban—not extension of the moribund Kyoto Protocol.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered (2009 and 2011) and of Unstoppable Global Warming (2007).

Things don’t look promising for the perennial climate confab in Durban, South Africa.  There is little chance of extending the Kyoto Protocol - a giant international scam that has already wasted hundreds of billions, with little to show for it.  In fact, the increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases has been accelerating. 

What brings nearly 200 delegations together is a dream, the forlorn hope that developed nations who have ratified the Protocol will come up with a $100 billion per year aid program; this is supposed to allow developing nations to adapt to the putative climate disasters that the IPCC - the UN’s climate-science panel, has been predicting for more than 20 years.  The US, which never ratified Kyoto, is supposed to supply the lion’s share of this subsidy.  Fat chance; just look at the polls.

Developed nations are on a guilt trip, having convinced themselves that their industrial development has resulted in most of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  But is this bad?  Have extreme climate events really increased?  Can we even trace and prove a measurable anthropogenic effect on climate?  Or, perhaps, have higher CO2 levels improved crop yields and averted mass starvation of a growing world population?  What does science have to say about this?

That’s where the UN-IPCC should come into play.  And its credibility has been under attack - especially in the past two years.  Personally, I tend to discount the recent revelations of the e-mails of Climategate.  They are not telling me anything new.  The “usual suspects” are seen to be plotting and scheming to support “the cause” - even as some of them are beginning to have doubts.  Yet they continue to hide information, manipulate data, and subvert the peer-review process, the bedrock of scientific integrity.  The damage they cause to the general scientific enterprise is hard to over-estimate.

But quite aside from the non-ethical behavior of the IPCC principals, what about the science itself?  Perhaps the science isn’t so certain after all - even though the IPCC report of 2007 claims to be 90 to 99 percent sure that most of the claimed warming between 1978 and 2000 is anthropogenic, caused by carbon dioxide from the burning of fuels to generate energy.

As an atmospheric scientist, I am intrigued by the just-announced results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said to “confirm” the findings of the temperature analyses of the IPCC.  Indeed, they all seem to show a rapid warming of the land surface between 1978 and 2000.  So, it is claimed, this shows that “global warming is real.”

But I wonder about the logic of this assertion.  After all, BEST and IPCC are not really independent; they all rely on readings from land-surface thermometers.  How then does one explain the absence of any warming of the atmosphere (as seen by satellites and, independently, by balloon-borne radiosondes)?  I have real doubts about reported warming of the oceans during the same time period.  And there is little doubt that proxy (non-thermometer) data show mostly no post-1978 warming trend.  I note that the multi-proxy analysis published by Michael Mann et al [Nature 1998] suddenly stops in 1978.  I would place a small bet that this analysis shows no post-1978 warming—which may be why it was withheld.

So we are left with a puzzle:  Why do land-surface data differ from all other independent datasets?  Is there really substantial global warming to support the IPCC’s conclusion of AGW?  These are the fundamental questions to focus on in Durban - not extension of the moribund Kyoto Protocol.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered [2009 and 2011] and of Unstoppable Global Warming [2007].

Der Spiegel reports today how the UN has just come out with a new report claiming the big threat now is local heat waves and freak storms.

That’s quite a change from global-wide warming and sea level rise.

Remember how for years and years UN scientists, armed with their mighty models, warned the planet faced massive hurricanes, rapid sea level rise and global-wide warming? Funny how we’ve been hearing very little about that lately. We’ve gone from “global warming” to “spot heating” with local storms sprinkled in.

Maybe the change in narrative has something to do with the hard statistics showing no real hurricanes hitting the USA in over 3 years or so. In fact it’s been yet another year with not a hurricane hitting the coast. Indeed tropical cyclone activity looks everything but out of control, and has been taming big time for 20 years! See: Ryan Maue. Can’t dupe the public with that anymore.

Even worse (if you’re an alarmist) is that sea levels are dropping! See Steve Goddard’s site here. They’ve been showing a declining trend over the last couple years. Oh dear! oh dear! The models never predicted that.

These disappearing horrors, once their favorites, have turned into shock and awe over the warmist camp. It’s panic time for them. How on Earth are they now supposed to spread fear and panic when all their old horror scenarios are dissolving before their very eyes?

The answer of course is to trot out new ones, this time they’re using horrors where the statistics are incomplete, thus making it difficult to disprove alleged increasing trends. Not only that, their models have suddenly begun to show they’re coming! And we all know how flawless their models are.

Der Spiegel reports today on how a new UN study has now just come up with local extreme heat waves as the next man-made climate disaster. It’s perfect - man-made heat waves are now lurking somewhere out there, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting regions and fry unprepared citizens. It could happen anywhere, and you may be next! The UN cites Russia and Texas as compelling evidence. Also waiting to ambush locally are storms and flash floods, so says the UN.

But even Der Spiegel is not so convinced and adds:

“This year other studies show no increase in weather extremes: Winter storms in the northern hemisphere have been trending less, report scientists in the magazine “Tellus”. The same goes for river flooding in USA. That US rivers are being influenced by man-made climate change cannot be discerned, the US Geological Service summed up in October.”

Global sea level rise and global-scale warming are obviously dead. Looks like a tough road ahead for warmists and their desperate efforts to keep the climate Halloween party going.

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.