Hansen said this last year.
Significant climatic “extreme events” were now occurring over 10 to 15 per cent of the planet annually, whereas between 1950 to 1980 they occurred over less than 1 per cent. So in places like Texas this year, Moscow last year, and Europe in 2003, the climate change is so big that they are undeniable.
This is a typical case of Hansen fabricating numbers. A 1974 CIA report said the exact opposite.
Early In the 1970s a series of adverse climate anomalies occurred
The world’s snow and ice cover has increased by 10-15%
In the eastern Canadian area of the Arctic Greenland, below normal temperatures were recorded for 19 consecutive months. Nothing like this has happened in the last 100 years.
The Moscow region suffered its worst drought in three to five hundred years
Massive floods took place in the midwestern United States
Drought occurred in Central America, the Sub-Sahara, South Asia, China, and Australia
Within a single year, adversity had visited almost every nation on the globe.
Hansen seems to be in charge of rewriting history at NASA. All of the climate fraudsters are depending on his efforts.
Actually there is an even more basic underlying idiocy…there is no agreed scientific definition for ‘extreme event’, so it’s impossible to count them now or in the past.
Are NASA and Gavin Schmidt just bad at arithmetic ?
The IPCC confirms that all the warming since 1850 is ~ 0.7°C and asserts that this warming is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions. A trivial check sum can be done by translating percentages of the ~33 °C Greenhouse Effect into °C for each active constituent.
The abstract of the NASA GISS paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf states:
“Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect
……….. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.”
Gavin A. Schmidt, Reto A. Ruedy, Ron L. Miller, and Andy A. Lacis
Transposition of the Gavin Schmidt’s values to °C of greenhouse effect is as follows:
Water Vapour and Clouds ~75% ~24.75°C
Other Greenhouse Gases ~25% ~8.25°C
Other non H2O non CO2 GHGs gases (calculated according to CDIAC) ~1.2% ~0.41°C
Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~7.84°C
Natural CO2 280 ppmv (100% emissions since 1850) x 280/390 ~5.63°C
Man-made CO2 (full increase since 1850 Man-made 110 ppmv ) x 110/390 ~2.21°C
As the reported and acknowledged temperature increase since 1850 is known to be only ~0.7°C in total, how can this result be possible.
Thus at 2.21 °C past Anthropogenic Global Warming is exaggerated to be more than three times the acknowledged temperature rise since 1850.
Clearly neither Gavin Schmidt nor his peer reviewing colleagues carried out this trivial check sum before publication. Had they done so, they would have seen that these give a gross exaggeration of Man-made influence on temperature even from past CO2 emissions.
All other published proportional data start out with water vapour and clouds accounting for ~95% of the greenhouse effect.
Nonetheless those promoting the alarmist “Cause” expect the Western world to revolutionise its economies based on this type of assertion and calculation. This is the type of trivial due diligence that seems never to be undertaken in the Alarmist Global warming camp. Instead radical and vastly expensive policies are formulated to address Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming. Inaccurate assertions of this nature have been widely accepted by governments.
These are the climate experts that World Governments via the UN IPCC depend upon and on which the Western world is basing its self-destructive and costly policy decisions.
If my memory of the IPCC reports are correct, they are not claiming that “all” of the .7C was attributable to CO2, only “most”. Presumably, “most” could be as little as 51%.