Popular Science – Google Books
Half of the years in the 1950s had severe droughts. Hansen was off by a factor of ten in his calculation.
Contiguous U.S., Palmer Modified Drought Index (PMDI), July-June 1896-2012
The Guardian calls him the world’s greatest climatologist – because he is spectacularly incompetent.
Is Gavin Schmidt bad at sums as well?
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. ……….”
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.
Your analysis is utterly simplistic. You assume linearity where there is not linearity, you ignore aerosols, other factors, and then disparage scientists for not being as stupid as you are.
True skepticism is one thing — ignorance is something else.
And believing in fairy tales is even further down the road.
Dear David Appell,
How do you know it is not linear? Do you have a peer-reviewed paper?
> Do you have a peer-reviewed paper?
Yes. (You should try it sometime.)
Or David, you could bother to understand the actual literature on the subject rather than invent some misguided attack devoid of factual information.
“[D]roughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025711.shtml
Speaking of “true ignorance…” 😉
Hey, Steve. Watts have ripped off your work.
Certainly as I read WUWT I am not surprised that they find unwarranted adjustment
of the temperatures. All up of course.
I guess that is because I was already aware of it from Steven.
I’m stunned to hear that the adjustments stink.
I’ll bet you are.
For an ignorant layman such as myself the whole thing gets rather obscure.
Lots of personal vendettas that I just don’t follow. ( Mosh in a corner in a snot)
Correct me f I am wrong, but wasn’t Anthony in here just a few days ago getting the address of some of this data ?
Meanwhile, I wouldn’t blame you for wanting to stay put of the way of flung poo.
Correct “snot” to “snit”
And ‘put” to “out”
Typos suck when they come out as real words.
“Readings taken from instruments are DATA; and, data are FACTS. DATA, adjusted to “correct” for some set of factors, are no longer DATA, but rather un-DATA and are no longer FACTS.”
WAGs!