Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy Debunks This Month’s Climate Hysterics

WRITTEN BY JEREMY BEAMAN

There is one particular word that Dr. John Christy turns to frequently for describing climate science: murky.

Dr. John Christy at his office at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

It’s a point of view foundational to his own research, and a message underpinning each of his twenty appearances before various congressional committees.

“It’s encouraging because they wouldn’t invite you back unless your message was compelling and not only compelling but accurate,” Christy, Alabama’s state climatologist, told Yellowhammer News in an interview.

Christy, whose day job involves doing research and teaching as the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), has gained notoriety over the years for dissenting from mainstream climate scientists and policymakers who argue that climate change is anthropogenic, or man-made, and that something must be done to stop it.

A “working-stiff” scientist

Dissent has gained for Christy the characterization as a “climate change skeptic” or “denier,” as critics refer to him, but he himself rejects those terms.

“I’m a working-stiff atmospheric scientist,” he said, “as opposed to those who support modeling efforts, those who use datasets that other people create and analyze them, but they don’t build them themselves.”

According to Christy, the result of fewer “working-stiff” scientists contributing to the prevailing climate debate is more frequent misuses of data.

“They’re not aware of what goes into it,” Christy said, referring to the data.

“Here we have a science that’s so dominated by personalities that claim the science is settled, yet when you walk up to them and say prove it, they can’t,” he said.

Christy spoke at length about what can be proven and what cannot in his self-described “murky” field, referring often to principles of the scientific method.

“You cannot prove extra greenhouse gases have done anything to the weather,” he said, responding to claims made by many scientists that more greenhouse gases have caused extreme weather patterns to intensify.

“We do not have an experiment that we can repeat and do,” he said.

Christy outlined another problem with attempts to implicate greenhouse gases: a failure to account for things countering trapping effects.

“We know that the extra greenhouse gases should warm the planet,” he said. “The weak part of that theory though is that when you add more greenhouse gases that trap heat, things happen that let it escape as well, and so not as much is trapped as climate models show.”

Economics of climate policy

Though his scientific arguments are primary, Christy also frequently discusses in interviews and testimonies the economic consequences of proposed climate change mitigation policy via carbon reduction.

“Every single person uses energy, carbon energy, and relies on carbon-based energy,” Christy said. “None of our medical advances, none of our technological advances, none of our progress would have happened in the last hundred years without energy derived from carbon.”

Christy contrasts that reality within the modern, developed world with the world he saw working as a missionary teacher in impoverished Africa during the 1970s.

“The energy source was wood chopped from the forest, the energy transmission system was the backs of women and girls hauling wood an average of three miles each day, the energy use system was burning the wood in an open fire indoors for heat and light,” Christy told members of the House Committee on Energy in 2006.

Broad availability to affordable energy enriches countries, Christy said, praising carbon.

“It is not evil. It is the stuff of life. It is plant food,” he said.

What about the fires and heat waves?

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, fires were burning in fifteen states as of Tuesday, August 14.

Alaska reported seventeen fires, Arizona reported eleven, both Oregon and Colorado reported ten, and California reported nine.

Much of the news media’s discussion about these fires over the past few weeks has established a correlation between the many fires and anthropogenic climate change, a correlation that Dr. Christy rejects.

Christy argues that exacerbating fires out west, particularly in California, results from human mismanagement. Such states have enacted strict management practices that disallow low-level fires from burning, he said.

“If you don’t let the low-intensity fires burn, that fuel builds up year after year,” Christy said. “Now once a fire gets going and it gets going enough, it has so much fuel that we can’t put it out.”

“In that sense, you could say that fires today are more intense, but it’s because of human management practices, not because mother nature has done something,” Christy said.

Data from the Fire Center indicates that the number of wildfires has been decreasing since the 1970s overall, though acreage burned has increased significantly.

As for the heat, Christy said there’s nothing abnormal going on in the United States.

“Heat waves have always happened,” he said. “Our most serious heatwaves were in the 1930’s. We have not matched those at all.”

Christy continued, “It is only a perception that is being built by the media that these are dramatic worst-ever heat wave kind of things but when we look at the numbers, and all science is numbers, we find that there were periods that were hotter, hotter for longer periods in the past, so it’s very hard to say that this was influenced by human effects when you go back before there could have been human effects and there’s the same or worse kind of events.”

Though Christy didn’t deny that the last three years have been the hottest ever recorded globally, he doesn’t concede that the changes are attributable to anything other than the climate’s usual and historical erraticism.

h/t to Climate Change Dispatch Read more at Yellow Hammer

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
113 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
D Cage
August 17, 2018 10:56 am

It is difficult to take any record seriously when none of the stations I have seen are remotely within the specification it should be especially with regard to tarmac and buildings inside the exclusion range to add to the intrinsic weakness of the test situation.
I would still like to see a formal repeat of the engineers test showing the effect of the clean air legislation on temperature measurements because the Stevenson screen is not a perfect enclosure so the effect of incident radiation is quite significant.

Jan
August 17, 2018 11:44 am

I’m not sure how much news the American folk get about the rest of the world but it’s not just California, half of Sweden has been on fire this Summer:

https://www.thelocal.se/20180717/sweden-battles-most-serious-wildfire-situation-of-modern-times-heres-what-you-need-to-know

and Portugal and Greece.

Roland F Hirsch
August 17, 2018 7:05 pm

This phrase at the end “Christy didn’t deny that the last three years have been the hottest ever recorded globally” should have read “Christy didn’t deny that the last three years have been the warmest ever recorded globally”. A couple tenths of degree higher temperature is not hotter.

Jesse Fell
August 20, 2018 5:56 am

Around the world, records for high temperatures are being broken, as temperatures approaching, or actually in, the 120s Fahrenheit are being recorded. The heat waves of recent years have been lethal mainly to the old, the sick, and the very young, but as temperatures continue to advance into the 120s, all human beings who have no refuge from the heat will be at risk.

Adding to the dangerousness of modern heat waves is that fact that nights are remaining too warm to provide people with much respite from heat induced stress. And warm nights are a signature of man-made global warming; the Earth is becoming less efficient at shedding heat at night because of the increasing amount of atmospheric CO2.

Of course, in the natural sciences we have to deal with probabilities rather than logically inescapable conclusions. This does not justify us in delaying action. Given the strong probability that the burning of fossils fuels is leading to dangerous global warming, and given the growing likelihood of serious consequences to thousands or millions of people from heat waves, we would be irresponsible — to say the least — not to take measures to curb emissions of CO2.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Jesse Fell
August 20, 2018 7:11 am

Jesse Fell

This does not justify us in delaying action. Given the strong probability that the burning of fossils fuels is leading to dangerous global warming, and given the growing likelihood of serious consequences to thousands or millions of people from heat waves, we would be irresponsible — to say the least — not to take measures to curb emissions of CO2.

Those fossil fuel are directly responsible for feeding, clothing, sheltering and protecting 5.5 billion innocent lives on this planet. You are calling for the deliberate death of several hindreds of millions, and the deliberate harm to all those billions on the “possibililty” that limited harm “might” come to some hundreds sometime in the far future – but only “if” the worst case extrapolated catastrophic scenarios actually play out.
And, thus far, not only have those worst case scenarios NOT come true, the programs exaggerating their potential future impact in hundred years have failed miserably in only the their first 15 years! Your “insurance policy” says: “Your state “might” be hit by a tornado in 100 years, therefore we must destroy your house today in case that tornado might cause your family to break a window and damage the carpeting.”

Jesse Fell
Reply to  RACookPE1978
August 20, 2018 7:42 am

We are in a jam, there’s no question. Fossil fuels are currently the basis of the world’s economy, if anything is. Weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, without causing the harm you point to, is going to be one of the greatest challenges that mankind has ever faced.

But we’ve got to get to work on it. The very worst case scenarios haven’t come true — quite so. But it doesn’t follow from that that all is well. The trend is in the wrong direction. Temperatures are rising worldwide. Nights are staying warmer. How anyone can be complacent about these trends is beyond me — but the continued existence of this web site suggests that plenty of people can.

I would like to see something like a Manhattan project to find clean affordable sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. We also need to find ways to conserve energy. None of this need result in loss of jobs; it could create them. But we can’t continue drifting downstream as we have been, dismissing the sound of waterfall as it grows louder, because, after all, we haven’t gone over yet.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Jesse Fell
August 21, 2018 2:07 pm

“We are in a jam, there’s no question.”

You sound like a person virtually signalling spouting all the approved talking points, without the benefit of actual research.

Jesse Fell
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
August 23, 2018 4:39 am

I have read widely in the literature on both sides of the question, and compared the conclusions of each side with what we can feel and see already. As a result, I am unable to share in the complacency that is the staple of this web site. I do not expect to live long enough to see the worst effects of climate change on the human race, especially on its poor and therefore most vulnerable members. But it’s not hard to imagine what those effects will be. An ancient Roman, so it is said, planted trees for the benefit of future generations. Would that we in this generation were capable of accepting responsibility for the effect of our actions on the generations that follow us.