Another Associated Press Science Communication Failure

John Flesher from the Associated Press has a story making the rounds on how "Many Cities Are Preparing For Climate Change, They Just Won't Say So."

The title is correct -- unfortunately. A whole army of politically well-connected consultants are being paid enormous amounts of taxpayer money to generate climate change analyses for municipalities. And many of these reports are substandard. The problem, as is so often the case when it comes to who the government does business with, is that the system appears to be an anti-meritocracy. Value for money is simply not being obtained, and until the public starts bouncing up and down demanding better value, the gravy train of slop will continue unabated (more accurately, it will accelerate). The use of climate models downscaled to the size of a city is essentially a waste of time and money. We have terrible climate predictivity at the global scale, and the quality only declines the higher the resolution that models are applied to. On the other hand, analysis of historical climate data can be done quickly and effectively by a whole range of individuals with basic science training. No need to pay high-end consulting rates from big firms for this. If it needs to be done -- source it out to a small firm with minimal overhead and correspondingly reasonable rates. All this makes too much sense, meaning cities and small towns will ignore the advice. Flesher's article focuses partly on Tulsa, Oklahoma:

---

"'The messaging needs to be more on being prepared and knowing we're tending to have more extreme events,' said Graham Brannin, planning director in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Sen. James Inhofe -- a global warming denier and author of a book labeling it 'The Greatest Hoax' -- once served as mayor. 'The reasoning behind it doesn't matter; let's just get ready.' ... In Tulsa, the city has been buying out homeowners and limiting development near the Arkansas River to help prevent flooding from severe storms. Although two lakes provide ample drinking water, Brannin is beginning to push for conservation with future droughts in mind. A nonprofit, Tulsa Partners Inc., is advocating 'green infrastructure' such as permeable pavement to soak up storm runoff."

OK, fine. Let us focus on Tulsa. The climate record for the Tulsa area in the NOAA National Weather Service database begins in 1906. There have been absolutely no significant trends in average monthly or annual temperatures for Tulsa since records began. Exact same no-trend results for average and extreme monthly and annual maximum temperatures, with the sole exception of September -- whose mean and extreme maximum temperatures are declining, not increasing, over time (i.e., a cooling, not warming, trend). All the summer months have correlations towards cooling, not warming, maximum temperatures. The number of days each year above 95 F has a significant declining -- yes, declining -- trend since 1906, as does the number of days above 90 F, and the number of days above 100 F has a very near-significant (p=0.06) decline. Extreme heat is becoming far less of a problem over time in Tulsa. The number of cooling, heating, and growing degree days -- which affect air conditioning, home heating, and agricultural production, respectively -- also have no signs of significant trends since records began. No individual months have a significant trend in precipitation since records began, nor does annual precipitation. Same applies for maximum one-day precipitation amounts -- no trends either for any individual month, or annually. Also no trends in the number of days per year with more than one inch of rain, or in the number of days having more than two inches of rain. Tulsa's climate is quite remarkable in the absence of change during the past 108 years. If the city is spending any significant money on climate change studies, it looks like it is being entirely wasted. A couple hours of data analysis using free online datasets from NOAA-NWS tells you all you need to know about Tulsa's unchanging climate. And regarding that statement that "in Tulsa, the city has been buying out homeowners and limiting development near the Arkansas River to help prevent flooding from severe storms," here is the USGS peak streamflow graph for the Arkansas River at Tulsa, with data going back to the start of records in 1923: See any climate change induced impacts? Actually, there is a significant declining trend in the magnitude of the annual flood peak each year. And as I've previously noted,

"There are no negative trends in annual precipitation for any of Oklahoma's nine climate sub-regions, either, over the past 120 years. None. There are no declining trends in summertime precipitation for the state as a whole, nor in any of its climate sub-regions, since 1895. None. You may also be interested to know that there are also no significant trends in Oklahoma's statewide average annual or summertime temperatures since 1895. What about the drought indices? Perhaps they are trending towards more drought conditions in Oklahoma over time? No. There are no trends towards declining Palmer Drought Severity Indices (PDSIs) for the state as a whole, or any of its climate sub-regions, since 1895 on 12-month, 24-month, 36-month, 48-month, or 60-month bases."

The collective information herein should serve to debunk any climate hysteria for the Tulsa region. Of course the nonsense isn't limited to Tulsa. Grand Haven, Michigan -- right next-door to Grand Rapids -- is also featured in Flesher's article:

"Leaders in Grand Haven, a town of 10,600 in predominantly Republican western Michigan, will meet this fall with design consultants to explore such possibilities as 'cooling stations' for low-income people during future heat waves, or development restrictions to prevent storm erosion of the Lake Michigan waterfront."

Cooling stations for low-income people during future heat waves in Grand Haven, Michigan? You have to be kidding? This is seriously on the municipal agenda?

Journalism today doesn't include informing the public on what the actual climate trends are for comparison, rather than just repeating the climate modeling fantasies and various unsubstantiated concerns?

There has been no significant trend in annual temperatures for the Grand Rapids region since records began in 1896. In fact, the correlation is nearly perfectly non-significant, leaning slightly towards cooling, not warming. Average summertime temperatures also have a negative non-significant correlation towards cooling. So do average maximum summertime temperatures. Extreme maximum temperatures have a significant declining (cooling) trend, as do the number of days per year above 90 F, or above 95 F. The area has only had 19 days above 100 F in 118 years, and there is a negative (declining) correlation over this time frame. There were two in 2012, and prior to that, the last year with any days above 100 F was way back in 1953. The record is six set back in 1936. Summer heat is becoming less of a problem over time in the Grand Haven area, and yet the town is contemplating cooling stations? It is all too ridiculous. Why weren't any of these details mentioned in the Associated Press article? Apparently journalism today doesn't include informing the public on what the actual climate trends are for comparison, rather than just repeating the climate modeling fantasies and various unsubstantiated concerns? Time for residents of these two cities to start asking their municipal representatives some serious questions about what is going on.