Some people have a love for truth. Sometimes defending the truth can cost you dearly. How do we know the truth of anything? Evidence is the ultimate determinant of truth. Courage by those who defend it when they have everything to lose, may suggest the truth is close at hand, especially in the face of an an irrational response by those opposed.
John Christy, 63, is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
He has researched climate issues for 27 years and was a lead author/editor of a section of the 2001 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the definitive assessment of the state of global warming. With a colleague at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer, he received NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 for building a global temperature database.
Prominent scientists have acknowledged his credentials, yet he is widely vilified by his peers. Scientists seldom agree on everything but when is vilification a “scientific” response? Answer: Perhaps when the purpose of the science is to validate a political agenda, and not the search for scientific truth.
He and hundreds of other global warming “dissidents” disagree that global warming is either settled science or a dire threat. He believes there is SOME warming, for which man may be responsible; carbon dioxide from power plants, automobiles and other sources. But computer predictions of warming are overstated when compared against actual result from satellites and weather balloons and almost everyone agrees with him on this.
Since their predictive value is worthless, something must be fundamentally wrong with the basic model, perhaps the exclusion of other possibilities such as natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean. Christy says “you have to know what’s happening before you know why it’s happening, and that comes back to data” … and before you radically change the economies of the world. Again, common sense contradicts the “vision of the anointed”.
His opponents argue that although the predictions are wrong “the science behind them is compelling, and it is very likely that the world has only a few decades to stave off potentially catastrophic warming”. All past such predictions have been proven wrong. 2016 was supposed to be the year of catastrophes and our collective demise. We are still here. If the “science is compelling” and the predictions are systematically wrong, then either the predictions are not part of the science, or the science is compellingly wrong. Yet they want to radically change the economies of the world.
Christy has recently appeared as an expert witness before Congress. He is usually invited by Republicans. It seems Democrats are unable to produce an expert witness to counter his claims. Here is an editorial in the Investor’s Business Daily … February 5, 2016 recording Christy’s testimony to non experts such as ourselves.
Hottest Year On Record? Claim Not Backed Up By The Data
When the media reported — gleefully because it allowed them to advance their agenda — that 2015 was the hottest year on record, the temperature data that supposedly proved this was collected from surface-based measurements. Is this data trustworthy? Not according to John Christy.
He is a co-author of a paper that showed that about two-thirds of 1,218 government weather stations in the continental U.S. were located on sites that distort readings. (This is an excellent link)
Press Release – Watts at #AGU15 The quality of temperature station siting matters for temperature trends
These stations fix gauges near heat sources, such as air conditioner exhausts, urban structures that give off heat, and other objects “with unnatural thermal mass.” Christy told the house science committee on Wednesday that “it is difficult to adjust for these contaminating factors to extract a pure dataset for greenhouse detection because often the non-climatic influence comes along very gradually just as is expected of the response to the enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Other factors that “render surface temperature datasets to be of low effectiveness,” said Christy, include “lack of systematic geographical coverage in time, unsystematic measuring methods and instrumentation in time and space, the point measurement represents at best a tiny, local area, and is easily impacted by slight changes in the surroundings, which can occur for example when a station moves.”
Sea surface data also appear to be unreliable. Christy said water temperature trends at a 1-meter depth “do not track well with those of the air temperature just above the water (3m), even if both are measured on the same buoy over 20 years.”
Christy believes the more accurate gauge of global temperature is found by satellites and balloons, which measure atmospheric temperatures. It is “much more coherent in space and time in terms of its variations. It is not affected by human development at the surface. It is measured systematically,” he said.
Though satellite and balloon measurements provide a different temperature record than surface-based data, they are consistent with each other. Does this mean we should trust them more? That’s a logical judgment.
Satellite and balloon measurements differ, as well, from the climate change models that predict catastrophic warming. While the average of 102 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models project sharply climbing temperatures, the observed temperatures from balloon and satellite measurements move largely sideways.
Christy told the committee:
“The models over warm the atmosphere by a factor of about 2.5,” “indicating the current theory is at odds with the facts … (the discrepancy) “is not a short-term, specially selected episode, but represents the past 37 years,” … “This is also the period with the highest concentration of greenhouse gases and thus the period in which the response should be of largest magnitude,” he added.
Christy also told House members that climate change is still not well understood — the uncertainties are many — and that the impact of regulations on climate, such as those that are implemented in compliance with the Paris agreement, “will not be attributable or detectable.”
Despite the work of Christy and others, we will continue to hear about 2015 being the hottest year ever. The howls will be unrelenting, the demands that we do more to stop climate change more desperate.
But the only fever will be on the brows of those who are obsessed with continuing the narrative.