By Robert Bradley Jr. — February 5, 2019
“From the Climate Disinformation Database: John R. Christy” reads the headline from DeSmogBlog in its “Climate Denier Spotlight.” The following short profile follows (emphasis added):
John R. Christy is a professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a vocal critic of climate change models and has testified on numerous occasions against the mainstream scientific views on man-made climate change. Christy has affiliations with a number of climate science-denying think tanks, including the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. And now Andrew Wheeler has appointed him to serve on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board.
Professor Christy is an excellent choice for EPA’s Science Advisory Board. And if you doubt me, please read the quotations below that DeSmogBlog has put up on its website to purportedly discredit EPA Secretary Wheeler’s choice. Christy’s views are mainstream in the world that most of us live in.
February, 2016
“The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”
June, 2015
“[W]e are not morally bad people for taking carbon and turning it into the energy that offers life to humanity in a world that would otherwise be brutal (think of life before modernity). On the contrary, we are good people for doing so.”
April, 2015
“Carbon dioxide makes things grow. The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem.… There is absolutely no question that carbon energy provides with longer and better lives. There is no question about that.”
August, 2013
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
February, 2013
“If you choose to make regulations about carbon dioxide, that’s OK. You as a state can do that; you have a right to do it. But it’s not going to do anything about the climate. And it’s going to cost, there’s no doubt about that.”
March, 2011
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”
May, 2009
“As far as the [2003 American Geophysical Union statement], I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that’s certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get.”
February, 2009
“We utilize energy from carbon, not because we are bad people, but because it is the affordable foundation on which the profound improvements in our standard of living have been achieved – our progress in health and welfare.”
December, 2003
In a 2003 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Christy describes himself as “a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”
Christy also added:
“It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.”
Conclusion
The above quotations are neither radical nor errant. They are middle-of-the-roadish. John Christy knows that the climate changes and humans have a warming impact (good news indeed). And yes, the climate models are overpredicting real-world warming, a divergence that is growing, not contracting, as his iconic graph shows.
If Professor Christy sounds like a rational scientist working in a very unsettled field, you are correct. No “pretense of knowledge” here. Compare him to the know-it-all alarmist climatologists such as Andrew Dessler at Texas A&M, whose challenge to Texas Gov. Abbott was critically reviewed last week at MasterResource.
In fact, Dr. Christy (neutral profile here) is a global lukewarmer swimming upstream in a sea of Malthusian snowflakes, defined as those who think that the natural climate is optimal and that change cannot be good. (As Professor Dessler states: “… when it comes to climate, change is bad.” [1])
A polite, learned scientist, John Christy has to be among the most likeable physical scientists you will meet. (He was a star at a Houston Forum Climate Summit back in 1999, another story.) May America get to know him better in his new role.
———-
[1] Dessler, Introduction to Modern Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2016), p. 146 (his emphasis).
Rob Bradley is the editor of Master Resource, well worth adding to your bookmarks.
One of my favorite John Christy quotes, “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.”
If he seems to have a failing, I would say that sometimes he seems too nice. The time for playing the nice guy with the climate-alarmists is past. Skeptics tried being polite and it got them nowhere. They need someone to take the gloves off when dealing with the EPA activists.
Au contraire. Being nice DOES get you somewhere. Destroyed by a lynch mob.
Yes, Jon Jewett. I should of course have emphasized that being nice should always be the first, and the second, option. One might lose an argument, or even an election, but still ought to try and remain somewhere on the niceness spectrum.
However, serious climate-skeptical scientists mainly received contempt in return for their niceness. They were, and still are, misrepresented, disparaged, lied about, reviled, and suffered to have their research funding and livelihoods targeted and destroyed. Correcting that will require somebody in power with a stern will.
So if you see smoke coming from the EPA building it’s because they’ve started burning documents witch can’t see the daylight.
The EPA is burning witches?
Which witches can’t see the daylight? Perhaps the flames are too bright?
I live down the street from an EPA building. There used to be two EPA buildings there, one is now for rent.
Yeah Team!
Lovely news, Dave!
I just love it!
Dave; I bet they have lights on at night and you just know that none of these guys puts in an extra minute or even a full day. If you are looking for past editions of Marvel comics this may be a good place to start.
Cheers,
Speed
Great News! We hope the next step is for that building is that it is also up for rent and the useful team be moved to a much smaller building. Unless they are doing some real research, it seems like a team of 10 to 20 people can effectively use computers to shuffle the paperwork.
What has gotten us nowhere is emphasizing abstruse climate science (I mean the real thing, not the politics nor propaganda), and economics.
A couple weeks ago I ran into the craziest conspiracy theory I have seen yet: the Earth is being terraformed for something alien. Except that it IS. Carbon dioxide is the foundation of all life on land and most life in the sea (some sea life is still formed the way life began–through cracks in the ocean bottom enabling fully reduced hydrocarbons to meet oxygen in the form of water–very far indeed from equilibrium and therefore tremendous available energy). No matter how ignorant Occasionally-Correct and the other “green” clowns are, they cannot change this fact. Nor have they ever heard the phrase “climate optimum,” and they do not know that there is more life and biodiversity with temperatures 6 degrees C warmer than today.
They don’t care about economics because all money comes free from the government, anyway. There are no REAL costs such as hunger, unemployment, homelessness, for anything they want. Just tax the rich. The trillion or several trillion lost to the world’s economy from attacks on fossil fuels amount to no action at all because the Fake-news press doesn’t tell them about any of that.
Maybe if we start talking the real consequences to biological life, we will get somewhere.
Agreed, when people intentionally and willfully promote false information and personal attacks, they do not deserve respect. These people deserve the “scorched earth” treatment.
The first instance “climate denier”or “climate science denier” is the point I stop reading. All else that follows is not science.
I have to admit I deny they know how to make the climate static.
+10
I like that point! They want to make the climate static- in 4 billion plus years it has never been static. Regardless of what they do or don’t do, it never will be static.
Additionally, if it does actually get a little warmer, the climate would be better for most of mankind.
It can actually be correct.
Climate is static, in a given equilibrium, even when in consideration of the variability.
The very problem with AGW paradoxical terminology of “climate change”, still a hypothetical concept, with no bases in evidence…there is no any climate change as yet observed
Climate is still static in its given equilibrium, not in any “path” to a new equilibrium.
Oh well, I am sure of the point here as put can be confusing, and being very questionable.
cheers
that’s progress!
“John Christy knows that the climate changes and humans have a warming impact…”
Er, he can’t know that, since it hasn’t been shown. Humans may have caused some slight amount of warming, but we can’t even say if it’s been 0.1, 0.01, or 0.001C. Tough to call that an “impact”.
The word “impact” does not denote degree, in and of itself. If the change is not zero, there is an impact. Period. The sign and extent are up for debate.
Christy is a lukewarmer, like Judith Curry, just as both are not alarmists and do not pretend to knowledge they do not have.
So then, if I spit in the ocean, that “impacts” not only SLR but SSTs as well. ‘Kay.
Ok, but not on my beach…
your spit is kinda light … bubbles and not much density … generally gonna float … no impact.
if you wanna impact the ocean in a meaningful was you have to at least pee into it.
Ocean acidification.
Please don’t pee on my beach; it may be OK for me but I can’t have everyone else doing it. Hmmnn,
Speed
Indeed Dom, that will definitely warm up the oceans. Ok the added warming is so small that it can’t realistically be measured, but I’m sure we can model and homogenize it until the oceans star boiling from the pee.
I think Christy is like Lindzen in this respect. He doesn’t know the amount of impact, if any, (who does) but it keeps the alarmist hounds at bay to say it must have some effect. It makes him sound reasonable rather than saying “no impact” and getting into a war of words with fanatical climate evangelists. Christy just wants to get on with his work.
There is no doubt that humans have a very large impact on the calculated global average surface temperature.
fred250
How much?
I believe the key word in fred250’s post is “calculated”.
“There is no doubt that humans have a very large impact on the calculated global average surface temperature.”
Except for the annoying little fact that the warming has never been observed or measured.
True, but it has been calculated.
Sure they do Fred, after all, they invented it.
I would wager what was sarcasm considering this little gem:
“The calculated”. As in, all the adjusted temperatures or the models, you know, the calculations, not the observations
Fred250 is correct, they have adjusted the calculations to such an extent that a large impact is clearly evident. The amount is determined by the adjustment figure.
Fred250 sez:
“There is no doubt
that humans have
a very large impact
on the calculated
global average
surface temperature.”
In fact, there is
lots of doubt.
When there is “no doubt”,
there is no thinking !
I have no doubt”
the government bureaucrat
owners of the temperature data
have been predicting lots
of global warming since the 1970s,
so they have an incentive
to make sure their average
temperature calculations
(the actuals)
make their predictions
look good !
Isn’t there empirical evidence of CO2 warming at ~1C per doubling (in the ranges we exist in)?
The issue is, what is the ECS, in response to the added CO2. This is to say, is the feedback a net negative, positive, or zero. That is where the argument lays.
“Isn’t there empirical evidence of CO2 warming at ~1C per doubling “.
No. It’s all in the models.
Berkley Lab claimed that Feldman et al “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
was the “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface”
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
It did not even separate anthropogenic CO2 from natural CO2 and was heavily criticised for its inaccuracies.
What’s more there was no mention of surface warming.
“Isn’t there empirical evidence of CO2 warming at ~1C per doubling”
As the article quotes Christy as saying, that is only given that all other factors remain independent of this change.
Which is in no way a given.
“All other factors being equal” cannot be assumed.
In a complex system, other factors will respond the a change in some way.
And the stable history of the planet in the range conducive for live to flourish is proof that there are feedbacks that modulate the Earth into this range.
It is also beyond doubt that the planet is now close to the low end of this range, as well as close to the low end of the amount of CO2 needed to sustain the biosphere, given that all life* depends on this trace gas.
*with the possible exception of whatever is living deep inside rocks, at midocean ridge black smokers, and a few anaerobic niches here and there, none of which will matter a bit to people and animals and the plants we need.
Mario sez:
“Isn’t there empirical evidence
of CO2 warming at ~1C per doubling
(in the ranges we exist in)?”
First you have to assume
that CO2 caused 100% of the
warming since 1950,
which is a worst case assumption,
not a fact, and then extrapolate
the 1950 to 2018 rate of warming
into the future, and then the TCS
would be about +1.0 degree C.
per CO2 doubling.
No one knows the ECS.
Climate is a chaotic nonlinear system. “if a butterfly flaps its wing in Tokyo, it rains in Central Park”. They use these “logic” to assert that a year over year increase of 0.01C in global temperatures is responsible for cold temperatures in Chicago.
You cannot deny that humans have an impact on the local climate – to do so is just silly.
Deforestation, building cities (urban “heat islands”), growing crops, building dams etc etc all impact local climates and these changes spread.
I’m not stating anything but the obvious but I would like to see existing wilderness preserved. Worldwide the populations are urbanizing anyway.
The best way to save wildlife is to reduce the desire to kill them by lifting people out of poverty and nothing achieves this like cheap abundant energy.
The ridiculous campaign against CO2 works against every green idea of preserving nature.
Spot on Ross – another advantage of cheap energy is that those lifted out of poverty by access to it, have fewer children due to lower infant/child death rates. But that must be a “bad” result, because the climate alarmists want to stop those people getting cheap power. Look at the ongoing, 9 year long, campaign against the Adani coalmine here in Australia, a mine which would provide the coal for power stations in parts of India where none now exist.
Climate alarmist’s are anti-human.
You cannot deny that humans have an impact on the local climate – to do so is just silly
Indeed, and most of those impacts are due to land use changes and not a magic molecule.
I tell alarmist that we certainly have a climate impact on the micro scale but the on the macro scale we have no clue how much of an impact man has.
Urban heat island effects alone are a demonstration of warming.
And we add heat directly through burning of fuels and release of nuclear energy.
Small in terms of the total surface area and the entire heat budgets perhaps, but a real effect.
And which is warmer, a field of crops or a forest that it replaced?
Personally I think more effort ought to be directed towards countering the lie that warmer temps are somehow an automatic disaster on a half frozen planet experiencing a brief interglacial period, which we are all extremely fortunate to be experiencing while we are alive.
Warmth is life, and cold is death.
Bruce,
Explain “urban heat island” without humans?
Next: Induced rainfall anomalies downwind of major cities?
If you think “climate” is a single number based on calculated temperature of air at a few feet above Earth’s surface, please explain and justify.
Thanks.
John Christy did a study on the warming of the central valley in California- due to irrigation, so yes, he IS personally aware of local impacts- he’s measured them.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3627.1
Only in cities where temps can be up to 20 degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside.
Established views have to be tested and challenged continuously. If Albert didn’t
challenge the science of Isaac we wouldn’t have the GPS (what is that?)
Yesterday’s sceptics will brag ‘I told you so’ the day after tomorrow, I certainly hope to do so.
That shows a very long term grasp of what the reality is. I wish Dr Christy him lots of luck. His clear dissociation of CO2 from climate change is encouraging.
I have a question… he states that the warming predicted to be caused by CO2 in the Tropospere, that isn’t happening, is based on an assumption of no natural response. Quoi?
Does this mean the natural and dominant response to increasing SST, that mainatins our small and stable range of ice age equilibrium temperatures, by the variable evaporation of seawater, the resulting condensation into clouds and the albedo that causes, which is variation of around a current 150W/m^2, is NOT included in climate models?
Can’t be right, or the models would be so partial as to be worthless… comments actively sought.
150W/m^2,
=========
Individual clouds are not included in the climate models. So while the averages may match the variance will not.
This is important because radiation and temperature are a 4th power relation ship. Changing the variability gives a different average temperature for the same average radiation.
In other words, a hazy sky gives a lower average temperature than alternating clouds and blue sky, even though the average radiation is the same.
(1^4 +3^4)/2=41
((1+3)/2)^4=16
in both cases the average radiation us 2, but the first equation has much higher variability which give much higher temperature prediction.
Thanks.
Power radiated (j-star) by a blackbody (emissivity = 1) is proportional to Temperature (in Kelvin) raised to the 4th power.
As described by S-B Law: j-star = sigma times T to the 4th power.
(sigma is the S-B constant,)
Not radiation raised to the 4th to find a T, that makes no sense.
Thank you for that insight, Ferdberple.
The problem with this philosophy is that, as long as alarmists are in power, they can play nice all the time, because their niceness has no competition IN POWER. When skeptics NOT IN POWER use a “take off the gloves” approach, these NOT IN POWER skeptics are easily dismissed by the nice-playing alarmists IN POWER as being hothead, out-of-control deviants.
Consequently, I think that the only way that enough skeptics can get into power to make any difference is to continue playing as nice as possible, … in fact, taking nice-playing to a higher level than alarmists could ever hope to, … to the point of making alarmists look like the insanely myopic, falsehood-indoctrinated fanatics that they are.
Can someone say what the three satellite datasets are? As far as I know, they’re UAH, RSS and STAR, and STAR does not have a lower troposphere or total troposphere dataset. If all three datasets are of the same layer of the atmosphere, they would have to be “middle troposphere”, “upper troposphere”/ “troposphere-stratosphere” or “lower stratosphere” datasets, not useful for “surface-50k feet”. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”
I expect that Dr. Christy knows that the rest of the component processes of the climate system will NOT remain independent of this response. Such is the nature of complex non-linear chaotic systems. There are NO independent variables. There is no such thing as “equilibrium climate sensitivity”.
That may not be obvious to those without the benefit of a good Engineering education.
Hey Dave.., I really like your band and your music. Jus’ sayin’
You are thinking of his well known cousin, Steve Miller.
Or maybe Glenn.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xPXwkWVEIIw
https://soundcloud.com/davidmiller61/im-a-blues-man?in=davidmiller61/sets/david-miller-originals-and
I have too many stories about other Dave Millers. I won’t bore you!
I was not aware of Dave Miller the Blues Man. Thanks!
Bitte
Some say that Steve Miller was guilty of promoting global warming because of that “Jet Airliner” song he wrote. I have an open mind about it.
Something that is obvious even to those without the benefit of an Engineering education is that a response is not necessarily amplifying. It could be fractional.
Dave Miller – February 5, 2019 at 9:56 am
Dave M, …… “consensus science” is no better that “junk science”, …. even though the use of the former term is far more acceptable in “mixed” company.
‘There is no such thing as “equilibrium climate sensitivity”. ‘-Dave
Hear, hear! ^^^^^^
Since the climate system is always in disequilibrium as the night side chases the day side tail through the seasons, it should be called “disequilibrium climate sensitivity”.
I think it is fair to characterize Dr. Christy’s view as: The climate models demonstrate no predictive ability.
This is key. The benefits of carbon fuels are manifest and identifiable in elevating the circumstances of mankind. Should we abandon those proven benefits based upon unproven fears? That, I think, is immoral.
I’d like to hear it talked about how, since the mechanic of, “Greenhouse Warming,” has been observationally disproven, the new proposed mechanic of, “Radiant Forcing,” is impossible to produce with our industrial processes.
Radiant Forcing suggests that our CO2 emissions are adding to the total volume of the atmosphere, thus producing an inescapable natural warming effect.
But every CO2 molecule the process of combustion emits into the atmosphere, takes an O2 molecule out of it in a direct 1:1 ratio.
We aren’t adding gases to the atmosphere in the first place, we are shifting the relative concentrations, thus no Radiant Forcing can occur.
It would seem quite significant to me, that the question of how human industrial activity could produce the modest warming observed, hasn’t been answered yet.
What the eff? I mean, this is unreal. Are you trolling, possibly?
However, CO2 has a higher molecular weight than average air, thus there will be some increase in temperature, that is if you believe in things like gravity and the gas laws, which apparently are not believed or used in climastrology.
However, CO2 has a lower heat capacity and it offsets its higher molecular weight. He’s not trolling Hugs, he just believes in empirical science and scientific laws rather than comic book science. Here is a simple website that completely destroys the GHG warming meme.
http://www.calqlata.com/maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html
Believing in the inaptly named greenhouse effect is akin to believing that filling an empty room with furniture will then require a noticeable difference in energy to keep at the same temperature.
Only if the furniture arrives at a different temperature, what the temperature delta is, what is the furniture density is, etc. otherwise, no delta.
The point being that the furniture unequivocally has a higher opacity to IR, heat capacity, and thermal mass than the air inside the room it is displacing.
Let’s say the room has an old floor furnace in the center of the room. Heat radiates from the furnace to the walls. With furniture between the furnace and wall, the furniture absorbs and emits infrared radiation before it reaches the wall, the full spectrum instead of narrow bands like gas. The furniture has added to the total heat content in the room with its thermal mass and theoretically the furnace will need to operate less to heat the room to the same temperature, that is undebatable, but can it even be measured? And unlike CO2 in the atmosphere, the furniture cannot convect heat, which could possibly offset the already negligible effect of its “heat trapping” ability.
Furniture, having greater mass than the air it displaces will heat up more slowly than the air around it.
Robert W Turner – February 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm
Robert W, ……. actually, what is undebatable, …. is your misnurtured understanding of the science you are trying to explain.
First of all, heat from the furnace heats the air nearest the furnace, plus radiates some heat vertically ….. and the hot air circulate in the room, both radiating and conducting said heat to other air molecules, objects, walls, ceilings and thru the window glass to the exterior.
And “NO”, …. the furniture DOES NOT add to the total heat content in the room, ….. only the furnace can add heat to the room, …… that is, unless the furniture catches on fire. 😊
Now iffen the furnace is turned off, an “empty” room will cool down quicker than a room full of furniture. And just the opposite occurs when the furnace is 1st turned on, the “empty” room will heat up quicker.
Cute, someone that doesn’t even understand how ellipsis work is trying to give a physics lesson.
A thermostat is set at 70 F in two seperate buildings. One is an empty building and the other is filled with furniture. With both buildings having an internal temperature of 70F, the one filled with furniture (also at 70F) has a much higher thermal mass than the empty one, and therefore has more heat content even though it has the same temperature. This building will take longer to drop in temperature due to the higher thermal mass. Undebatable, that is if you want to argue based on real physics.
At the end of the month, the building with the higher thermal mass will theoretically use less energy to hold its temperature, and my argument is that the difference will be nearly negligible.
Despite his use of ellipses, he is quite correct: the furniture DOES NOT add heat*, only an energy source (such as the furnace) can do that. What the furniture CAN DO is absorb (when the surrounding air is warmer than the furniture), store, and release (when the surrounding air is cooler than the furniture) some of the heat that the furnace generated. The only object adding heat to the described system is the furnace.
* unless it combusts, in which case the burning furniture would be adding heat due to the furniture becoming an energy source.
“HA”, and if the internal temperature of both buildings was initially at 30F, which one of the buildings required the most thermal energy to raise its internal temperature to 70F, the empty one or the furniture filled one? “DUH”
And that building (w/furniture) also took a greater quantity of thermal energy and a longer period of heating to heat up to the denoted 70 F temperature due to the higher thermal mass.
Robert W, …… you are talking SHC (Specific Heat Capacity) of an empty building verses a furniture filled building.
Robert W, …… how’s come I have never seen/read a similar “higher thermal mass” argument being touted by you, ……. relative to the DIFFERENCE of the GROSS quantity of thermal energy being retained, ….. at 70 degrees F, ….. by 25,000 ppm of atmospheric H2O vapor ……. verses the quantity of thermal energy being retained by 410 ppm of atmospheric CO2?
“HA”, iffen CO2 isa causin global warmin, ……. then H2O vapor isa causin global scalding
You guys are missing the point about this, the concept of radiative forcing!
The furniture is preventing IR from directly radiating from the center of the room to the walls. The furniture is “back radiating” IR into the room, thus acting like a “greenhouse gas”. Explain how it is any different than that concept.
I think you did a nice job illustrating how absurd the idea that back radiation from gases in an atmosphere explain the temperature at the planet surface.
And higher thermal mass does mean it requires more energy to heat in the first place, but it also slows the rate of temperature change between the inside environment and outside environment (as long as that mass isn’t too thermally conductive), requiring less energy to maintain at a constant temperature.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268411404_Thermal_Mass_-Energy_Savings_Potential_in_Residential_Buildings
Furniture and walls are hardly a fair comparison but then neither is atmospheric gas and walls.
“DUH”, the furniture, the walls, the ceiling, the floor, etc., are all, per se, “back radiating” IR to and from every entity in the room, ….. except for that portion that radiates thru the window glass or conducts thru the walls and ceiling to the exterior of the room.
Robert W, …… your concept (belief) about “back radiating” is childish at best.
Iffen you REALLY want to learn how the IR thermal “heat” energy propagates from its source to other entities, ….. via your cited example of a floor furnace, ….. then either physically do it, or just visualize it, ….. by placing a small table lamp without a shade and with a 30W incandescent lightbulb in its socket, ….. in the center of the floor of your furniture filled room.
And when it becomes completely “dark” in that room so that you can’t see anything, …… “turn the switch to turn the light “ON”” …… and thus you can visually “see” a pretty much replication of how the IR thermal “heat” energy propagates from its source to other entities.
So, regardless of whether it is “visible light” radiation or “invisible IR” radiation, ….. they both “front” radiate, “back” radiate, “side” radiate, “up” radiate, “down” radiate and “every-which-way” radiate.
But be sure to remember, visible light” reflects “every-which-way” whereas IR” radiation is first absorbed and then re-radiated.
That, however, is no longer Radiant Forcing, but a much more complex issue of atmospheric density.
Density and air pressure fluctuate constantly, respond to local conditions, and is highly effected by other variables such as humidity.
Its far more difficult to establish causality, when the mechanism is so inherently dynamic to begin with.
And climatology might actually get somewhere in modeling and prediction if they bothered even acknowledging the actual physics involved, regardless of how difficult it is.
I find it quite a compelling and solid theory that changes in atmospheric density explain the major climate cycles, solving the Mesozoic climate and animal size paradox all in one simple theory using scientific laws.
That website is frankly scientific gibberish, it is really ‘comic book science’.
Frankly scientific gibberish? Is that code for you did not understand it? Point out a single thing on that website that is scientifically erroneous.
“He’s a vocal critic of climate change models and has testified on numerous occasions against the mainstream scientific views on man-made climate change. ”
“climate change models” …. LOL.
How true.
Maybe a Freudian slip by DeSmog?
Are you kidding?
The New Green Religion accepts climate change models as the Holy Prophets that they are.
No way that’s a slip. They actually believe the things.
They are called “climate models” by most folks who think are the models are tellers of a scientific truth about increasing CO2.
To call them “climate change models” reveals their real purpose.
If there ever was an honest man it’s John Christy.
One of 45 members:Roster
I guess that’s better than nothing.
An excellent choice for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board- John Christy is the very best.
John Christy is scientifically competent, honest, mature and reserved.
DeSmogBlog – not so much…
DeSmogBlog – not at all…
Having a qualifed person such as Dr. Christy tell you, nicely, that you should probably not believe some things that you do do is like a non-drinker telling you, nicely, that perhaps you might want to cut back on the Idiot Water because you aren’t making sense.
I keep telling myself I should drink less.
But why should I listen to an idiot drunk who talks to himself?
Desmogblog, the far-left character assasination site owned by the Big Red Green money and boosted by the extremists at Alphabet, Inc. attacks once again the scientist that could not be bought with money nor threatened by firearms.
Desmogblog, co-founded by a PR man who self-admitted that he knew nothing about climate science, but relied on a book author (who also was not a climate science expert) as the reason to call skeptic climate scientists “liars” and to start Desmogblog in order to tell the world that such people are liars. Think about the illogic of that entire notion. http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Hoggan-know-nothing-liars.jpg
Smog – a blend of polluting smoke and fog. That blog was designed to blow smoke and fog up a clear understanding of climate investigation. De-smogging is of course exactly the opposite of what they do, but that’s always a primary PR trick.
A common tactic in politics and financial fraud, the name is an intentional contradiction to its real outcome or purpose.
The Affordable Care Act and Patriot Act are an examples of a politicians employing a duplicitous naming strategy in naming of legislation.
Sometimes called in financial fraud cases of misnamed investment vehicles as duplicitous duality.
Tack on to that the national vaccine injury act of 1986
it is cooling
globally’
does Christy know that?
Not at the 30 year scale.
can’t know that (at the 30 yr scale) with waiting and looking back.
A brave person to accept the assignment but he’s always shown courage. Different people will have different roles in in this process. Those qualified defend science. Others will be blatantly political. It’s a team effort and right now we look a lot like the 1980 USA hockey team.
DeSmogBlog does seem to be celebrating his appointment with those quotes. Maybe they had a lucid moment over there. Sure it will pass.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
Does that surprise anyone? It’s exactly what is obvious in so many things that the establishment does. The media help them along every step of the way. Climate scientists and journalists were made for each other.
The liberal left climate consensus “DO IT OR WE’LL ALL DIE” meme by those with no understanding of Science or economics. The latest tactic has been to change the base case from the middle or average of the CMIP scenarios to the tippy tippy most extreme top of the forecast cases …. the case called RCP8.5. Such are the tools of propaganda. Oxford historian Norman Davis outlined five basic rules of propaganda in “Europe – a History,” Oxford Press, 1996, pp 500-501):
o Simplification – reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foes’, etc.
o Disfiguration – discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies
o Transfusion – manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own end
o Unanimity – presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of “star- performers,” by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’
o Orchestration- endlessly repeating the same message in different variations.
It’s cute that the folks at desmogblog think they are relevant.
They kinda are. Thanks to google. If you google for John Christy or many other climate scientists who have refused to toe the alarmist line, some of the first hits are from desm. That’s quite an achievement, and a result from goggle working as a desm booster.
Don’t underestimate the trust leftists give to the alarmist PR sites. PR as in prop’. The bias is blatant but not seen by people who genuinely think non-alarmists are bought by Exxon or similar.
Kinda, sorta, maybe?
Vs. WUWT, less than 10% of the traffic (and shrinking), 50% higher bounce rate, and 20% of the average visit duration (less than 1 minute and 1.3 pages).
https://www.similarweb.com/website/desmogblog.com?competitors=wattsupwiththat.com
Pot.. Kettle.. BLACK.
DeSmogblog: By crooks for crooks.
http://leftexposed.org/2016/08/desmogblog/
I hope he gets rid of that endangerment finding. Can he do that?
Add them to the Southern Poverty Law Center list of hate groups and investigate those who put a bullet in the office window at UAH.
Tough to do when the SPLC is itself a hate group.
Not a chance they’ll leave one of their own.
Thank God Gavin is fine fighting back
On Christy’s skepticism of models:
I’m curious why the Russian model that seems to be tracking actual data isn’t being touted more. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Director of the Center for Science, CATO Inst. was on Mark Levin a couple of weekends ago. He brought it up but nothing more than what I’ve mentioned here. I haven’t been able to find anything on it and am curious about what inputs they use and the ramifications, including for public debate away from vilifying CO2/fossil fuels.
He is without a doubt one of the most rational voices in the debate.
I like Dr. Christy for the EPA advisory board. Unlike most climate scientists, he is in touch with his inner-Feynman.
“[Human CO2 emissions] regulations are based on knowing how the climate system operates. One of the fundamental things about science is that when you understand a system, you can predict its behavior. I’ve demonstrated that the climate models we have now, cannot predict, even predict from the past, a major climate metric, the bulk temperature of the atmosphere.” – Dr. John Christy Congressional testimony.
Video of the hearing: https://youtu.be/_3_sHu34imQ (quoted statement occurs at approximately 1:31:20
The entire video is 2:11, and if you’ve never watched it, it’s a classic. Mann accuses “climate D Nye Rs” of being like Trofim Lysenko, and in the process, misrepresents the whole point of who the politically favored scientists are (it’s him and the hockey team). Quite ironically, without realizing the own goal, Mann accuses Roger Pielke, Jr. of bullying others for having threatened some lawsuits over nasty stuff said about him during the Nate Silver 538 fiasco. But then NO ONE ASKS MANN HOW MANY PEOPLE HE HAS THREATENED, AND THEN ACTUALLY SUED! For the record, Mann has sued the National Review, Mark Steyn, Dr. Tim Ball and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And of course, no one even thinks about asking Mann if he bullied Keith Briffa for years, to keep the declining Larch “temperatures” from appearing in the hockey stick spaghetti graph, whether it be for the IPCC assessments or the WMO cover page. And if you pay close attention, Mann accuses Republicans of “motivated reasoning” but then notice that the Democratic Congressal delegation asks questions almost exclusively of Dr. Mann, and nothing of the other witnesses. The Republicans, on the other hand, occasionally let Dr. Mann answer the same questions asked of the others.
Sorry, I had not rewatched in full, and was going from memory from seeing this a couple of years ago. I need to make a correction.
Above, I said no one from the Congressional committee (or the other witnesses) challenged Mann on his bullying victim assertion against Pielke Jr. using the actual lawsuits that he filed. But near the end of the session, Congressman Lahood does challenge Dr. Mann about his lawsuits and equates Mann’s use of the term “D Nye R” against Dr. Curry and “carnival barker” to describe Dr. Pielke, Jr. to the bullying he claims is directed against the “consensus” scientists. Mann flatly refuses to talk about the lawsuits he has instigated, but then goes on to assert that he doesn’t remember the carnival barker comment, and denies that he called Dr. Curry a “D Nye R” whereupon she laughs and informs him that it’s in his written statement. Dr. Pielke’s response is wonderful. He says in an ironic and suggestive way that everyone needs to see Dr. Mann’s performance and testimony, and judge for themselves.
A non-victim of Climate “Science” group-think being introduced into the “group”?
HORRORS!
He might be infectious and Climate “Science” at the might actually lose it’s quotes!
PS Praying.
J. Christy, J. Curry and R. Lindzen are among the most balanced climate scientists. Their view of the climate is the one with which I identify myself most. Christy in a nice choice for EPA. I hope that he stays there for long enough to bring back EPA’s credibility, at least on climate. This kind of choice should be completly free from any political view. When one puts the views on more democratic or republican views, it turns out to ruin everything (unfortunately, as reality has been showing, stupidity has no political party; and in this matter it’s a complete tie). John Christy is one of those people whose choice for this kind of role should be transgovernmental.
But Christy is but one out of some 25 others on the board. So is Pres. Trump going to get rid of the probably appointed by Obama types on this board.
Yes I agree the time for being nice to the Greens is way past, they are a dangerous mob, not so much the rank and file, they are sadly a bit like Joseph Stalin’s ” Usefull idiots”
Its the top brass of the Green movement we should be concerned about. The old saying , “Green on the outside, but very Red inside”. is sadly the truth.
Read your history, St. Petersburg in 1917, following the collapse of the Russian economy, part the Great War, part Russian poor administration, the Duma, ‘ Russia’s new Parliament was taken over by the Communest. What followed was a civil war, but the Communests won.
The lesion is that before Communism or other take overs can succeed, one has to have a collapse of the economy.
Today the weapon is CO2, and Global Warming come the new version of Climate Change.
Then reduce the energy of a economy, and upon its collapse, offer the population a second way. Dress it up as being far better than the old Free Enterprise, and Volla we have Communism. , and then we have the likes of Angela Mercal .
MJE
Of the 45 members of the EPA Science Advisory Board, Christy brings the total of those with any experience/expertise in weather or climate up to . . . 1.
Perhaps he will be able to correct some of their mistakes relating to how the climate works.
There are at least 660 people/organizations listed as “deniers” by DeSmog. The vast majority of them people. The majority of those people scientists. One name on the DeSmog list which surprised me is Jack Barrett, who wrote a mildly alarmist book called: “Global Warming – The Human Contribution“. Barrett pretty much accepts the mainstream IPCC view. He admonishes “extreme skeptics” for denying a GHGE from carbon dioxide alone of “1.1°C or 1.3°C“.
Witch hunts always end up burning their own.
This is a great letter to a minister of climate change following the recent heavy snow storms in Europe:-
https://waikanaewatch.org/2019/01/12/open-letter-to-james-shaw-minister-of-climate-change/
Acting EPA administrator has appointed Brant Ulsh, a leading member of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, to chair its radiation advisory committee. Dr. Ulsh has published several papers questioning scientific soundness of LNT assertion.
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”
__________________________________________________
No. CO2 atmospheric doubling lags temperature rise.
Not the other way round.
“the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.”
That partial statement by Christy doesn’t make sense. You can’t increase the course of something. You can alter its course, our divert it, but increasing in this context doesn’t seem to mean anything.